K. Peachey wrote:
Wikipedia editors: Coverage of Israel 'problematic'
Wikipedia's coverage of Israel-related issues is "problematic," leading Israeli internet researchers claimed Sunday at the Wikipedia Academy 2009 Conference dealing with the world's largest encyclopedia. The conference was organized by Wikimedia's volunteer-based Israel chapter and Tel Aviv University's Netvision Institute for Internet Studies. However, the Web site's leading manager said it merely reflected public discourse.
If the worst that can be said is that lead sections don't follow someone's editorial line (David Irving is a historian, by anyone's definition, even if he has destroyed his own reputation), then things aren't too bad. To research serious NPOV problems in an area on WP, you have to do more than scroll down articles about obviously sensitive topics until you find something you personally disagree with. Ahmadinejad and Irving are Israel-related in that they are both commentators on the Shoah; I was expecting more about articles that are obviously in [[Category:Israel]]. Perhaps the Haaretz article doesn't do justice to the study; the piece looks like it is drawn from a press release. The use of understatement in summary style is at least good taste, if the full article is setting out a detailed position. Wikipedia is allowed a house style that restricts the use of certain appositive phrases, and is chary of using such a contested term as "terrorist" (these are things it has in common with major news outlets, which is Sue Gardner's point).
Charles