The bans focused on the online editors' misconduct. Poor behavior included personal insults and misrepresenting sources.

Wikipedia banned eight volunteer editors from making changes to articles on the Arab-Israeli conflict, following a ruling on Thursday by the online encyclopedia’s Arbitration Committee.

In June, Wikipedia editors targeted the Anti-Defamation League, declaring it an “unreliable source” whose data could not be relied upon when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

When Wikipedia first announced disciplinary action against the Wikipedia editors, the ADL issued a press release praising the decision “in the wake of a massive effort by anti-Israel editors to spread misinformation and hate across the platform.”

ADL listed all but one of the banned anti-Israel editors. It named “Iskandar323,” “Selfstudier,” “Nableezy,” “Levivich” and “Nishidani” as “being part of a bad-faith campaign in an attempt t o undermine the credibility of ADL.”

  • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
    14·
    2 hours ago

    Take that as you will as a starting point.

    If you want your starting point to be “Easy, intellectually dishonest answers because I don’t have the first fucking idea of how Wikipedia or its culture works or a desire to lift a finger to understand”, then great. A+. No notes.

    That’s the foundational understanding people should have of this ArbCom decision I doubt you’ve even glanced at and that Jimmy Wales wouldn’t even have had tangential involvement with because why the fuck would he.

      • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
        14·
        2 hours ago

        So you read and understand the decision, right? Or did you just run to Wikipedia’s article on Jimmy Wales, look at the ‘Political views’ section, and decide you were sufficiently informed to poison the well raise the alarm? Pretty bad form; I’ve heard that the Randian Zionist whatever-the-fuck-you-want-to-blanket-Wikipedia-as cabal has conspired to slander notable democratic socialist champion Jimmy Wales. Can’t trust shit you read there. I can’t believe you would sink that low with your sourcing.

        • a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world
          31·
          2 hours ago

          So you read and understand the decision, right? Or did you just run to Wikipedia’s article on Jimmy Wales, look at the ‘Political views’ section, and decide you were sufficiently informed to poison the well raise the alarm?

          No, I know his views are kind of shitty already.

          I can’t believe you would sink that low with your sourcing

          Umm, you accused me of sourcing information on the site he founded.

          You seem tired. You might need a nap.

          • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
            14·
            2 hours ago

            Umm, you accused me of sourcing information on the site he founded.

            Yes!! And as we’ve established now, it’s run by the Randian Zionist etc. cabal. Why would you believe the filthy, propagandist lies published there smearing dear revolutionary Jimbo Wales?

            (You’ve already turned this into a farce, so I’m going to treat it like one.)