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