Tuesday, October 05, 2010

At Wikibias, Nominations Being Accepted For "The Most Biased Article on Wikipedia"

Wikibias is looking for nominations for "The Most Biased Article on Wikipedia." You can use their contact form to make your nomination.

One nomination is the Wikipedia article on Israeli Settlement, which on August 31 began:
Israeli settlements are Jewish only settlements” built by the Israel on occupied and confiscated land that is occupied through wars (such as the Six-Day War) and forceful evacuation of the indigenous people from their homes in Palestinian West Bank. Such settlements currently exist in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. The latter two areas are governed under Israeli civil law but all three territories are considered to be under military occupation by the international community.
A number of points are raised by Wikibias in the fisking of just this one paragraph alone, among them:

Indigeneity is both hotly contested and difficult to define. The Jewish people is indigenous or autochthonous in Judea and Samaria since this is where the Jewish people arose over 3,300 years ago. The Palestinian Arabs are also autochthonous in this sense, having come to define themselves as Palestinian in the 1920′s by some accounts, and with the founding of the PLO in 1964 by others. The Arab people are autochthonous or indigenous to the Hijaz where they arose in the seventh century. They arrived in the Land of Israel as conquerors.

On an individual level, many Jews were born in these villages and towns, some before 1948 and many after 1967. As individuals, they are indigenous. But just as the ancestors of many of the area’s Jews immigrated from other lands, so did the ancestors of many of the area’s Arabs, who came in a series of historical waves, including a great wave of immigration to economic opportunity in the early twentieth century. If they are not less indigenous than the Jews who came then, neither are they more indigenous.
Read the whole thing.

And don't forget to give Wikibias your nomination for The Most Biased Article on Wikipedia

Technorati Tag: and .

1 comment:

Wikipedia is biased! said...

http://wikipediaisbiased.blogspot.com

'Hate, wikibias and the Arab Islamic militant lobby'

THE PROBLEM WITH WIKIPEDIABIAS VIS-A-VIS ISRAEL

HOW IT 'WORKS'

1) OUTNUMBERED

There's always 2 to 1 or 10 to 2, in the ratio when trying to defend the non-Palestinian version.

2) NON-STOP ORGANIZED

The anti-Israel wikipedians are 24 hrs non-stop well organized and work in team (though one or tow are using "sock puppets" when needed), tag-teams, suggesting organizations and financial backing.

This lobby works mainly in: Edit wars, relentless reverting edits they dislike, pushing to delete any article that is not in their line. Lobbying adminIstrators to back them up.

3) AGGRESSIVE AND RADICAL

The (POV - point of view pushing] line these anti-Israel users adopted is hard-line Islamist.

4) WHAT IS A RELIABLE SOURCE? AND 'YOU ARE A SOCK - BLOCKED!'

One of the main "leaders" in the anti-Israel Arab-Islamic "mob" has introduced and dictates a line whereby any non-lefty Israel source is branded as unreliable and whoever comes fresh to wikipedia and tries to defend the non-anti-Israel-line "must" be a "sockpuppet" of someone else, and pushes administrators to block him/her based on this pseudo notion and "evidence."

5) TERRORIZING

The terrorizing mentality by some Islamists in real life does not escape Wikipedia, once an editor makes edit/s "not in line" they are after him/her, harassing, keeping reverting his edits, even when unrelated to Israel.

6) WHERE THE BIAS - SCREAMS

Anti-Israel editors are allowed to edit war as much as they wish, the other side is being harassed under banner of "disruption." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Chesdovi_blocked ]

"Accusation" of someone as a sockpuppet if it's by anti-Israel Islamists its considered in a serious manner, carefully investigated and blocking occurs even without definite evidence, when such an accuation is being presented by the other side it's rejected as an outright "bad faith," and never investigated.