except in the case there is no source or there assertion it is a genocide is “seriously contested”.
I think a big part of this, is how Wikipedia was never meant to be a source for developing news…
Like, 1943 the nazis would have seriously contested any of the multiple genocides that were committed. Or US/Canadian treatment of their Indigenous populations at the time.
But it’s “logic” like in actual logic classes in college.
They could have 37 different examples of how what Israel is doing meets a definition of genocide, with video evidence, and a list of everyone who says it’s a genocide…
But their job isn’t to draw the conclusion, it never was.
And I get wanting Wikipedia to say it is, because it undeniably is.
But the opposite of biased reporting isn’t biasing it the other way. It’s counterintuitive, but it’s easier to hold onto a nonbiased organization than one biased in your direction. The pendulum swings faster the higher up it is. You can’t push it the way you want it to go, you have to hold it as still as possible.
Wikipedia’s job is not to draw conclusions, but it does have a responsibility to present the consensus of primary and secondary sources, give those views appropriate weight and avoid presenting a false balance (WP:FALSEBALANCE). It also has no requirement to present all statements in text as attributed to a specific source when they are not contentious.
Considering the UN and most academic sources - all ostensibly neutral and authoritative bodies - agree that there is a genocide in Gaza, I would say there is more than enough reason to present this point of view as the primary interpretation in the article (with dissent posed as opposition). Indeed, if you read the two previous RFCs (1, 2), the discussion is not about which POV should be presented as dominant, but whether the the lede sentence should be in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV (“x said y”) or the more authoritative WP:WIKIVOICE (“y”). To be clear, that means the question is whether there is enough contention such that each perspective needs attribution in the very first sentence of the article, rather than later on in the body.
I wasn’t involved in either of these RFCs, but I was an active and somewhat prolific Wikipedia editor at one point, but to throw in my two cents I think that it was the right choice in this case to present it as a genocide in the lede without attribution. Stylistically, it is preferable to present the initial sentence(s) in the more factual wikivoice unless absolutely necessitated otherwise by significant credible contention. The alternate wordings read as weasel-y and, I think, presents a false balance about how strong the consensus is. As it currently stands, with the wikivoice lead, the following sentences attribute positions accurately without detracting from this impression.
The developing news part does complicate things quite a bit. From what I have seen of the discussion, it’s not that they intend to counteract the bias (though perhaps they do and are just hiding behind other arguments), but that they believe there is sufficient reliable sources calling it a genocide and insufficient reputable sources to contest it in the lede (instead saving it for later in the article).
As you say, the Nazis would certainly have contested the relevant genocide claims, but that’s exactly why the editors of Wikipedia have placed less weight on government sources. Whether this bar of “sufficient reliable sources” is in the right place is a separate matter, but these matters are resolved through the RFCs they have. Wales’ statement came directly after such an RFC was held looking to reopen the conversation that was just closed, seemingly in disregard of it. If this statement had been made as part of that RFC, then it probably would have been received more positively.
I think a big part of this, is how Wikipedia was never meant to be a source for developing news…
Like, 1943 the nazis would have seriously contested any of the multiple genocides that were committed. Or US/Canadian treatment of their Indigenous populations at the time.
But it’s “logic” like in actual logic classes in college.
They could have 37 different examples of how what Israel is doing meets a definition of genocide, with video evidence, and a list of everyone who says it’s a genocide…
But their job isn’t to draw the conclusion, it never was.
And I get wanting Wikipedia to say it is, because it undeniably is.
But the opposite of biased reporting isn’t biasing it the other way. It’s counterintuitive, but it’s easier to hold onto a nonbiased organization than one biased in your direction. The pendulum swings faster the higher up it is. You can’t push it the way you want it to go, you have to hold it as still as possible.
Wikipedia’s job is not to draw conclusions, but it does have a responsibility to present the consensus of primary and secondary sources, give those views appropriate weight and avoid presenting a false balance (WP:FALSEBALANCE). It also has no requirement to present all statements in text as attributed to a specific source when they are not contentious.
Considering the UN and most academic sources - all ostensibly neutral and authoritative bodies - agree that there is a genocide in Gaza, I would say there is more than enough reason to present this point of view as the primary interpretation in the article (with dissent posed as opposition). Indeed, if you read the two previous RFCs (1, 2), the discussion is not about which POV should be presented as dominant, but whether the the lede sentence should be in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV (“x said y”) or the more authoritative WP:WIKIVOICE (“y”). To be clear, that means the question is whether there is enough contention such that each perspective needs attribution in the very first sentence of the article, rather than later on in the body.
I wasn’t involved in either of these RFCs, but I was an active and somewhat prolific Wikipedia editor at one point, but to throw in my two cents I think that it was the right choice in this case to present it as a genocide in the lede without attribution. Stylistically, it is preferable to present the initial sentence(s) in the more factual wikivoice unless absolutely necessitated otherwise by significant credible contention. The alternate wordings read as weasel-y and, I think, presents a false balance about how strong the consensus is. As it currently stands, with the wikivoice lead, the following sentences attribute positions accurately without detracting from this impression.
The developing news part does complicate things quite a bit. From what I have seen of the discussion, it’s not that they intend to counteract the bias (though perhaps they do and are just hiding behind other arguments), but that they believe there is sufficient reliable sources calling it a genocide and insufficient reputable sources to contest it in the lede (instead saving it for later in the article).
As you say, the Nazis would certainly have contested the relevant genocide claims, but that’s exactly why the editors of Wikipedia have placed less weight on government sources. Whether this bar of “sufficient reliable sources” is in the right place is a separate matter, but these matters are resolved through the RFCs they have. Wales’ statement came directly after such an RFC was held looking to reopen the conversation that was just closed, seemingly in disregard of it. If this statement had been made as part of that RFC, then it probably would have been received more positively.