PDF means it's legit yall
this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024
549 points (96.3% liked)
Not The Onion
12165 readers
347 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
🙃
Gee, I wonder what some murders want with the real names of people who they don't like.
Anyone curious why privacy is so important even if you've done nothing wrong?
By the almighty god that lives in fantasy land known as heaven, can those genocidal monsters shut up already?
That sounds like antisemitic hate speech...
You'll need to publish your full name now.
load more comments
(4 replies)
challenges to Wikipedia's ideals include "The Power of the Admins and Beurocrats" [sic], as well as the gender gap
I wonder what would happen if you graphed the share of biographies by birth year. It'd probably increase over time.
Can you not literally see the edit history of Wikipedia articles?
The report actually suggests a new bias and neutrality editing framework with its own edit history, unrelated to existing content editing tools.
In other words, the argument is that the current editing framework does not do enough to specifically address bias and neutrality. That seems pretty clear to me regardless of current events.
I know edits to add and correct bias do happen. I agree it would be nice if power editors, at least, were not anonymous. I wish there was a Wikipedia that could only be edited be verified, trusted experts. The potential is there with the fediverse. And in fact I thought Wikipedia was working on this. I requested an invite but never got one.
Such edits for neutrality (as well as to insert bias) are made. There is a history. It is talked about and recorded. It is searchable. It is distributed. Man, you should hear these Wikipedia editors talk to each other if you haven't, it's like a different language.
Anyway: the source article suggests an extra layer to that system, with public standards and criteria supported by research, which it also proposed, and suggests that editors could be monitored for bias based on such standards.
I see the potential for draconian abuse but this is one website. As I said, I hoped there would be a fediverse instance to consolidate legitimate expert, factual information. Someone shared a website with me the other day that included such technical analysis for current events. I will link it when I get another minute.
E: here's that link https://www.sciencemediacentre.org
A wikipedia written by only verified trusted experts is called an encyclopedia, we have those online now. I think there was once a wikipedia-like online encyclopedia way back when in the late 90s or early 2000s that would only allow verified experts in whichever subject to participate to edit and create articles. I can't find what I'm talking about atm but it basically died from lack of participation and only had a hundred or so entries.
load more comments
(8 replies)
Yes, that's why this is in c/nottheonion
Wait so it's fake?
No, it just seems too ridiculous to be true. Read this community's sidebar.
It doesn't seem like a satire site.
Edit: Oh I see the emphasis on seems now.
No, it means that the subject matter is ridiculous enough to be satirical, but unfortunately it isn’t.
I have been curious about this since the subreddit on reddit, is The Onion the magazine from Harry Potter universe that wrote ridiculous things or is it a real magazine? I always think of someone from HP deliberately writing dumb articles (perhaps Rita Skeeter named someone?) So i'm not sure.
That was The Quibbler. Skeeter wrote for the normal paper. She was normal level bullshit. Quibbler was 'frogs on the moon' level bullshit.
The Onion is a real paper (or at least while it was in print, it’s all digital now) and has existed since the late ‘80s, well before Harry Potter came along.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Yes I understand it now. Just didn't read your comment correctly. Thank you.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Wikipedia is israeli ran from the top down it's not just army of IDF soldiers editing it.
For example Wikipedia lists israeli lobby organisation ADL as a "reliable source"
In 2020, the ADL trained staff to edit Wikipedia pages, but after the project caused Wikipedia editors to criticize this as a conflict of interest, the ADL said it suspended the project in April 2021. The ADL is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, and the ADL said its staff complied with Wikipedia policies by disclosing their affiliations, but some Wikipedia editors objected that the project cited ADL sources disproportionately and did not reflect the volunteer spirit of the website, especially in heavily editing its own Wikipedia article.
Anyone that knows anything about ADL knows they are not reliable whatsoever. Wikipedia is a compromised Zionist dumpsterfire.
Please elaborate why they are not reliable for things other than Israel/Palestine topics, for which WP:RSP already has a small warning about that area. Just having bias and doing advocacy doesn't necessarily mean that their reporting is unreliable, though as with other biased sources more objective sources are preferred.
Even if ADL were unreliable, that's just one source, and I don't see how that exemplifies that "Wikipedia is a compromised Zionist dumpsterfire". Organizations and individuals are allowed to submit requests to edit pages for which they have a conflict of interest, and I don't see why Wikipedia being open to review them means it's now Israeli-ran from the top-down.
For anything non-controlversial and science related Wikipedia is fine. But when it comes to geopolitics Wikipedia is extremely Western biased. And in the case of middle eastern topic severely compromised. It's an important place to play with words and selectively put disinformation so people who think they get educated leave brainwashed.
There's far far more, I wrote a lengthy comment once about Wikipedia claiming israel's 1967 invasion war a "pre-emptive attack" which is a very dubious claim at best and debunked by many israeli leaders already. Wikipedia might be open for review but with the amount of Zionists involved in editing Palestine related articles there's no way real change gets through. Ironically Wikipedia instead just has an entirely different page explaining why it's actually not a pre-emptive attack but nobody is going to look through that. They will see the summary of the first article and the damage will be done.
The ADL is one of the biggest Zionist slander lobbies that call any criticism of israel "anti-Semitic". Wikipedia still listing the ADL as a "reliable source" cannot mean anything else than israel having huge influence on Wikipedia's politcy.
Any organisation that endorses the ADL or uses them as a "news source" is severely compromised it's as simple as that. It's like people quoting Russian state propaganda as evidence. By now everyone knows the ADL is an israeli slander lobby
Not exactly sure what you're arguing about the six-day war, but if you mean that it should be an unjustified invasion instead of "pre-emptive"... My first impression of "pre-emptive" is unjustified and at best marginally better than an invasion, and the UN seems to agree in Article 2 (4) of the UN charter. That "entirely different page" is also summarized in the six-day war–page's "Controversies" section, but I assume you're talking about the lede. "On 5 June 1967, as the UNEF was in the process of leaving the zone, Israel launched a series of preemptive airstrikes against Egyptian airfields and other facilities, launching its war effort.[28] Egyptian forces were caught by surprise, and nearly all of Egypt's military aerial assets were destroyed, giving Israel air supremacy" does not give me an impression that Egypt planned to invade.
The ADL is one of the biggest Zionist slander lobbies that call any criticism of israel “anti-Semitic”.
Even if that were true, "there is consensus that the labelling of organisations and individuals by the ADL (particularly as antisemitic) should be attributed." That converts it into an opinion. Nowhere have you demonstrated that the ADL has a track record of falsifying facts, not opinions such as labeling people.
Pre-emptive means that an imminent threat is coming and they struck it first. Aka that "israel had the right to defend itself" before even being attacked. Which was a straight up lie.
If you're not informed about the ADL here's a decent article on it. The more you read up on the ADL the worse it gets.
Since the 7 October attacks, the ADL has been working with law enforcement to crack down on college campus activism that it sees as antisemitic. They developed a legal strategy to go after branches of Students for Justice in Palestine, and reached out to 200 university leaders calling on them to investigate the group for allegedly providing support to Hamas, which the group vehemently denies. ADL has described grassroots calls for protests of Israel’s military campaign as “pro-Hamas activism”.
Again, Wikipedia's reliable source listings are only concerned about the quality of the source's factual reporting. Having a horrible bias in judgement does not preclude factual reporting.
had the right to defend itself” before even being attacked
And many people think that's wrong. Just saying that that's the reason Israel and most publications claim Israel did that is not claiming that it was justified.
Calling anti Palestine protests pro Hamas or anti Semitism is not factual.
Having a "antisemitic incident counter" which increases every time someone says "free Palestine" is not factual.
Again, labels, especially of antisemitism, are considered opinions and attributed.
The ADL is used as a source for "anti Semitism statistics" which are per definition rigged. An organisation that claims to be anti racism and prejudice which raison d'etre is to smear anyone including Jews which are against israel is not just "opinions". The ADL is a piece of filth that enables Genocide by using anti-Semitism as a shield for israel.
The ADL defies its entire point of existence. Classifying pro palestine protests as anti Semitic and hate speech is per definition a lie.
The ADL is used as a source for hate groups' backgrounds and way more than labeling their antisemitism, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity_(religion).
Which they also have no authority for becuase one of their other main goals is spread anti-Arab propganda.
Under the guise of fighting hate speech, the ADL has a long history of wielding its moral authority to attack Arabs, blacks, and queers.
In the present, the ADL has continued to militate against internationalist, intersectional anti-racism, and has used its status as “the nation’s premier civil rights organization” to do so. In a particularly painful example in 2016, the ADL’s director wrote a critique of the Movement For Black Lives policy platform, using the black spiritual phrasing of the civil rights movement: he told them to set aside intersectional bonds with Palestinian resistance and instead “keep our eyes on the prize.” At the same time, the ADL has consistently used the language of civil rights, and its position as an authority on them, to describe Israeli state military violence as liberatory and Palestinian resistance, including non-violent civil resistance, as extremist. This habit isn’t incidental: the ADL is now a vetter of content for YouTube, where videos relating to the Boyscott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement have been censored as hate speech. It has also reportedly joined forces with Facebook, Twitter, and Microsoft as well to “engineer solutions” to cyberhate, and is building a Silicon Valley “command center” to house these operations.
And one of their source articles where it becomes rather apparent that the ADL heavily pushes for islamophobic legislation
Shalev: You don’t think that “Muslim-baiting” is much more acceptable in the mainstream media than, say, “Jew-baiting”? There is a Congressman now who is calling for the authorities to keep track of the entire Muslim community.Foxman: I don’t think that’s Muslim-baiting. It’s a natural response. It may be wise or unwise. But I think America’s got an issue now, and not only America. You look at France, you look at London, you look at Amsterdam—most of these incidents have come from Muslim communities that have been brought in and are not assimilating. Just like after 9/11, America is now questioning where the balance is between security and freedom of expression: Should we follow the ethnic communities? Should we be monitoring mosques? This isn’t Muslim-baiting—it’s driven by fear, by a desire for safety and security.
I won't reply further if you can't separate bias from objective facts, especially those that are tangential to the bias, such as the history and key persons of a white supremacist group that doesn't involve Arabs.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Anyone that knows anything about ADL knows they are not reliable whatsoever
Of course. Still, even if someone knows nothing about ADL, by making a simple search with the keywords "ADL zionism" they will have the relevant page that confirms they are zionists. I won't add this link, but I will add the link of:
Jewish Voice for Peace - Our approach to zionism
While it had many strains historically, the Zionism that took hold and stands today is a settler-colonial movement, establishing an apartheid state where Jews have more rights than others. Our own history teaches us how dangerous this can be.
Palestinian dispossession and occupation are by design. (...)
Searching about it, the ADL seems to try and separate support of the Israeli government from Zionism, and defines Zionism as the belief that Jews should have a sovereign state to live together. If one thinks that Israel shouldn't be sovereign at all and being abolished tomorrow would be very good, I'd also agree that that is extremist.
From Anti-Israel and Anti-Zionist Campaigns - ADL
While criticism of Israeli policies and actions is part of that discourse, certain forms of anti-Israel rhetoric and activism delegitimize Israel and its existence, and are antisemitic when they vilify and negate Zionism – the movement for Jewish self-determination and statehood – or utilize anti-Jewish tropes or hold all Jews responsible for Israel’s actions.
- They try to portray zionism this way in order to legitimize settler colonialism, and equate anti-zionism with antisemitism. Historically this chance was lost well over a century ago. See quote above from Jewish Voice for Peace and their site for details.
- Check out the Ben Gurion and the critic he got from Bundists. If you like videos, this one is pretty informative:
The History of "Socialist" Zionism | Leftist Zionists did the Nakba & founded Israel - If you like text you could take a look at:
The Neglected History of the State of Israel - The Revisionist faction of Zionism that ended up triumphing adhered to literal fascist doctrines and traditions.
Thanks.