Dabljuh wrote:
To a degree the guy does have a point. Wikipedia has a huge jewish/zionist bias on a large number of articles. (Newsflash: There's biased articles in/on Wikipedia?)
But thats not because of the software, its policy, or its people. Its because of 1) the "Islamofascists" dont follow NPOV and 2) other... fascists, who exploit the above weakness to their own views.
But the guy is ultimately wrong. Of course it's not that Wales & Sanger are secret zionist overlords.
Sophisticated reasoning (somewhat) is good...
Wales, like many americans and many liberals, just has a rather common pro-israel/pro-judaism bias.
Ugh. Liberals = pro-Israel? I dont recall ever hearing the current "neo-conservative" political administration called "liberal." And keep in mind that that (apparently "conservative") anti-war movement which probably could have derailed the Iraq War was scattered largely due to the problem that certain people were confusing anti-Israeli policy with anti-Semitic beliefs.
That "confusion" of course has often been attributed to Muslims (rightly or not) and its something which... others have exploited politically. With much success I might add -- a point which Ray pointed out quite well. So don't confuse Judaism with Zionism, which in fact has undergone extreme changes from its origins as a religious "homeland" movement to whats now largely an statist ideology (both having only the ethnic dimension in common).
There are ethnic biases on Wikipedia, just as in the world, so it should be understood that opposing biases are easily exploited to serve some short-sighted agenda. To acceptance of any bias means that the tie between NPOV and universality and therefore human rights will continue to be clouded by this same... exploited confusion.
-SV
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com