Amid the backlash, Wales insisted that he was not saying “that it is not genocide, my argument is that it is not the job of Wikipedia to adjudicate the issue”.
Incredibly reasonable position, but some people really really really hate wikipedia
Especially now that Musk launched his “version”.
There’s going to be even more social media accounts that want one of the internets best resources dismantled.
Words have meanings. It’s the job of Wikipedia to call things by their right names. That’s not adjudication, it’s accuracy and due diligence.
It’s not the position taken, it’s more the timing and subject on which to be outspoken. There were a few other more appropriate opportunities for Wales to reinforce Wikipedia’s principles that came before this process side-step.
The concern from article editors is that there might be other hot-button topics that for Wales would justify a veto-style judgement, which would be contrary to the very message Wales is purporting to send.
Except less than a month before, Wikipedia concluded an RFC (request for comments) discussing this exact issue where 2/3 voted to call it a genocide. He could’ve argued for it here.
The argument primarily stemmed from governments which claimed it was not a genocide, which would also apply to other accepted genocides. He said that academics should not be considered above other sources for deciding to call it a genocide despite it being established policy on Wikipedia that academic sources are held above other sources. So basically going against well established policy which is applied to the rest of Wikipedia in direct conflict with the community consensus.
Wales also is a self described ally of Israel and has received monetary awards from them which presents a conflict of interest. If you’d like to read the whole exchange (or part of it) you can do so here. When people link to pages in the WP namespace (e.g. WP:NPOV) they are referencing established policy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide#Statement_from_Jimbo_Wales
which would also apply to other accepted genocides
Can you give me an example where despite lots of evidence of genocide, there’s not been an international ruling declaring genocide yet Wikipedia still says it’s a genocide?
To me, that would be the smoking gun that this was a biased move.
But what he is saying now is how it should always be. Throw all the evidence and sources up there, and make it clear that it hasn’t been ruled a genocide yet officially, maybe even have a section on how that process has been going and who’s opposing it.
That would be how to do it right.
I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “international ruling”, but I’ll try to answer a couple of possibilities.
To quote one user from the rather lengthy thread I linked:
Unless you think we should deny the Armenian genocide, too, because only 30 or so countries have formally recognized it.
This would be one example of few nations recognizing a what is generally accepted as a genocide.
Perhaps you mean the UN specifically. Some bodies within the UN have called it a genocide, but the countries within the UN haven’t voted to declare it as such (to my knowledge). However, many argued that governments aren’t necessarily a good authority on this due to political conflicts of interest.
The ICJ has issued some warrants related to the genocide, but I don’t know if any of their language specifically called it a genocide.
I agree that Wikipedia should be neutral, but given the academic consensus and Wales’ conflicts of interest I think their neutral point of view policy is satisfied. To me it seems like an attempt to dress genocide denialism in the form of adhering to their “neutral point of view” policy, but this being my opinion is of course subjective.
EDIT: it does look like they discuss the opponents to calling it a genocide in the Political Discourse section of the wiki page
EDIT2: fixed some formatting in the quote, some of my text was accidentally included
because only 30 or so countries have formally recognized it.
Since you couldn’t find a link I did
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide_recognition
30 is more than twice 14…
But that’s the gist of it.
Wikipedia can’t say Bob committed a genocide, they can’t “say” anything except “____ said ____”
Like that link, that lists every country who has said Israel is commiting a genocide…
Thanks for finding that, I’m at the airport so was being a bit lazy, though unless I’m looking at the wrong place it says 34 UN countries have recognized it as of 2025.
After briefly browsing the neutrality policy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view), it doesn’t look like stating it is a genocide is a problem except in the case there is no source or there assertion it is a genocide is “seriously contested”. So they can say “the ___ genocide [1]” and aren’t necessarily required to say “____ said ____”. What qualifies as a good source or a seriously contested claim would fall under one or more of the other policy pages I think.
I should also add that while the Gaza genocide page discusses the people who claim it isn’t a genocide, particular attention in the neutrality discussion was placed on the opening sentences of the article which call it a genocide. The first paragraph in an article faces greater scrutiny for compliance with policy because it’s the first thing read and people may not read further.
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 would support having links to “the controversy” on that page, except those “controversy” pages are going to be filled with lies, which don’t belong on Wikipedia. Maybe a page of links to not-wikipedia sources so that people can easily judge the info by its source? You know who would be a good group to make this call? The Wikipedia editors
The Wikipedia editors know what they’re doing, I trust them more than a guy who said things under pressure in a rigged interview, even if he is the founder.
In my experience, Wikipedia has a pervasive cultural of false balance, and it does not surprise me at all that this attitude extends to the founder of the site. Despite their many policies dictating otherwise, in my experience adjudicators often end up weighing authoritative academic sources equally with outdated or lower quality references. Looking through the talk page, it sounds like there was already an extensive RFC for the wording of the lede. Policy was already applied correctly in this case - the system worked as it was supposed to - and it’s incredibly inappropriate for Wales to pull rank, reopen discussion when there has been no notable change in circumstance, and advocate for this exact kind of behaviour.
Welp, there’s goes the last fucking unenshittified decent thing in the internet.
ITS A FUCKING GENOCIDE
Don’t jump to conclusions. Jimmy’s “intervention” has been largely rejected by the Wikipedia community, and it wasn’t much of an intervention to begin with.
He made a comment in a discussion, as can anyone. People disagree with his comment. Intervention my ass, all he did is express his opinion, which everyone is free to ignore.
Ah for fucks sake. Fine I will download the entire wikipedia. It’s probably a matter of when not if it goes to shit.
Did that a few weeks back. Use kiwix
If you want a good laugh, go to the article and switch the Hebrew then translate it back to English with your browser. That version is probably what Jimmy wants the page to look like.
