Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-12-24/Discussion report

← Back to Discussion report

Discuss this story

JPxG: Can we add an addendum to the Arabic Wikipedia forced logout issue? Just this additional paragraph since new developments have occurred while this edition was being published:

NickK filed a Steward request immediately on Meta after the Wikibreak enforcer came online: requesting for the enforcer to be removed on basis that unsuspecting logged editors going onto the Arabic Wikipedia would be logged out without adequate warnings. After a quick discussion with an unanimous view that the protest should not affect logged editors on other projects formed, the enforcer was removed.

– robertsky (talk) 11:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

JPxG doesn't seem to be around, or busy with other things, so I went ahead and added this update. It's rare that we change content post-publication, but this seems to be a worthwhile exception. Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Pretty appalling politicisation of ar.wiki. I know it had some major POV issues with regards to Israel, but this pretty much ruins any credibilty it might have for being a balanced, reliable source. Perhaps it might need an hr.wiki-style WMF intervention? Number 57 15:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• I live in Norway and I am strongly supporting Ukraine's fight against the invasion from Russia (for reasons of moral and realpolitik). But changing the logo to display Ukraine colors, or a statement of sympathy for Ukraine? Not on my watch. I do not consider Wikipedia as pro-Ukraine or pro-Palestine, or whatever other worthy case there is, but pro neutral content, backed up with as good sources as possible. The only political engagement I would advocate is to write as neutral as possible texts on what ever topic that interests you, and leave direct promotion of this or that position to political parties, pressure groups or countries, there are enough of them already. Ulflarsen (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Ulflarsen: I would consider myself pretty pro-Palestine and pro-Ukraine (also anti-Palestine at the same time for reasons), and I still find this apalling, because Wikipedia is supposed to be very neutral on these sorts of topics.

  Of course, I don't want the Wikipedia logo to be changed to the Israeli flag either, but rather just steer clear of anything remotely political at the site-wide level. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 19:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

To User:QuickQuokka: I used my position on Ukraine to describe why I find it prudent for Wikipedia to steer clear of taking sides, but yes, I am also both shocked and in anguish regarding the situation in Palestine and Israel, and how both parties seems to disregard international law and human rights. But again, I don't see that as something I should promote supporting this or that side, it's just not what Wikipedia is about. Again, there are enough forums for those who want to do that, we should stick to our single mission, free knowledge to as many as possible. And of course, within that free knowledge, there should be as neutral and well sourced articles both about Hama's terrorist attack and Israels response on it, then readers can learn more about what is going on there. Ulflarsen (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Meh, enwiki did something similar to protest SOPA/PIPA. Mach61 (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

To Mach61: I know, but I did not support that either. I believe we should use our time here to write as neutral and well sourced articles as possible, not promoting this or that position directly. The way we can do that is to use time on such articles, improve them, for the benefit of as many as possible, not this or that fraction of the society. Ulflarsen (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mach61: I think that's different, because SOPA/PIPA presented an existential threat to Wikipedia and the WMF itself. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 19:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Did they do the same to protest the 300,000+ killed in Yemen? And others said, that was about a policy that affected Wikipedia itself. Number 57 19:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Big difference. SOPA/PIPA/ACTA were not political, just ham fisted legal wishlists for the some big media companies, directly threatening the existence of Wikipedia. I do wonder if Wikipedians would agree to protest World War III if it started, however. What existential threats do we protest? :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Some serious PoV issues there. We laugh at Conservapedia for doing similar. Israel should rightly be condemned for its massively disproportionate response to the Hamas terrorist attacks, but that's not Wikipedia's job. The SOPA blackout was useful as it raised awareness and Wikipedia going down could have actually made a difference; ar.wiki doing this raises no awareness and will have no effect on Netanyahu's actions. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

What can be done about the Arabic Wikipedia at this point? Its administrators are clearly abusing their power. Yaron K. (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

See also: meta:Requests for comment/Violating the Neutral point of view in Arabic Wiki

A RfC on metawiki.· ^מקף Hyphen _෴ · 19:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• The steward request has been archived. It is visible at permalink. That might be added to Signpost. Johnuniq (talk) 02:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

   Done — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• Obvious NPOV issue. No language Wikipedia should become a nationalist organ. Andre🚐 05:18, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I can't believe comments here. What is the site supposed to do, tell its Palestinian editors "we don't care if you die"? And don't think that you're just not supporting partisanship, or such (how many protested the Georgian parallel? But no, somehow western countries don't support one invasion, but are enthusiastic about another one...) - by declaring your opposition to a tiny protest that will, happily for some I presume, do little to stop the billions going into aiding a genocide, you are indeed supporting the latter. And, sure, sopa was different... in the sense that even if it was enacted no life would have been lost! Some perspective would be lovely... and no, sopa wouldn't have affected this site more, because wars kill people, and I thought people edited, not some legislation... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.60.13 (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)