Without Women or Evolution: 'Ultra-Orthodox Wikipedia'

[Malik Shabazz]

Without Women or Evolution: 'Ultra-Orthodox Wikipedia' Is Literally Rewriting History

Omer Benjakob, Haaretz, March 1, 2018

A new initiative aimed at bringing Wikipedia to the ultra-Orthodox community is making waves in Israel due to what many take to be the crude manner it has edited out content deemed unsuitable for the community.

Called Hamichlol (“the entirety”), the Hebrew-language project uses the “wiki” technology found at the root of Wikipedia to create a parallel and Haredi-friendly version of the online encyclopedia for the growing number of ultra-Orthodox connecting to the internet in Israel. ...

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.pr ... -1.5866754
Like most (all?) of Benjakob's articles, this is a "premium" article on a website that allows only a limited number of free reads every month.

The gist is that a Haredi ("ultra-Orthodox") group is rewriting Wikipedia articles (from he.wiki) to better suit their religious beliefs. Because they don't approve of women in government, for example, their photo of the Israeli cabinet is missing all the female ministers (see below, with captions from Haaretz). Some articles, such as "Zooarchaeology", include red strike-throughs where the Wikipedia text was deleted.

Israel's 34th government, with the women edited out.

The original image. Spot the differences.

[Poetlister]

Every religion has its nutcase wing. It's not as bad as Conservapedia, is it?

[JCM]

I'm not sure I would call the ultra Orthodox nutcases, at least not in public anyway, but I do find the idea of religious groups effectively mining wikipedia as a way to start the creation of a reference work dedicated to their faith interesting. It would probably be pointless for Catholics or mainline Jews to do the same considering they already have their own dedicated reference works, and the online Anabaptist Mennonite encyclopedia is probably better in its coverage of itself than wikipedia already, but I don't know of any similar work for the Zoroastrians or several of the neopagan movements, or the various individual Orthodox traditions, and seeing them set up similar works would definitely be welcomed at least by me. And I guess I could see even a few more focused sites within Catholicism, like maybe an online Jesuit encyclopedia or a really extensive collection of prayers, or encyclopedia of miracles and apparitions, or similar works along those lines.

[Malik Shabazz]

I'm not sure I would call the ultra Orthodox nutcases, at least not in public anyway

I try to be respectful and tolerant of people whose religious beliefs and practices are different than mine. (My forbearance ends when those practices go beyond self-destructive behavior and start to harm others.) I will simply say that there are groups of Haredim whose Judaism bears more resemblance to the Taliban than to anything I've ever encountered, either in synagogue or in my religious studies.

[DHeyward]

It's no different than wikipedia (and wikipedia is no different than conservapedia or any other pedia made up of a community). It reflects the beliefs of the people that contribute to it.

[Casliber]

It's no different than wikipedia (and wikipedia is no different than conservapedia or any other pedia made up of a community). It reflects the beliefs of the people that contribute to it.

That's a bit like saying the Good News Bible is no different to (say) the Encyclopedia Brittanica....

[DHeyward]

It's no different than wikipedia (and wikipedia is no different than conservapedia or any other pedia made up of a community). It reflects the beliefs of the people that contribute to it.

That's a bit like saying the Good News Bible is no different to (say) the Encyclopedia Brittanica....

Nope. It's just saying the Wikipedia/rationalwiki/conservapedia/orthodoxpedia are all on one side of the fence and professional encyclopedia's are the other. Last I checked, the good news bible wasn't a crowd sourced encyclopedia. Crowd sourced wiki's are no better than the crowd that contribute. "The Truth" isn't a democracy or consensus or whatever other method that is created where the mob rules. "Consensus" is a glass house's stone throw away from torches and pitchforks.

[iii]

It's no different than wikipedia (and wikipedia is no different than conservapedia or any other pedia made up of a community). It reflects the beliefs of the people that contribute to it.

That's a bit like saying the Good News Bible is no different to (say) the Encyclopedia Brittanica....

Nope. It's just saying the Wikipedia/rationalwiki/conservapedia/orthodoxpedia are all on one side of the fence and professional encyclopedia's are the other.

I like Brittanica as much as the next contributor, but it is not magic. Ultimately, any human endeavor suffers from being produced by/for a community.

[The Adversary]

Without Women or Evolution: 'Ultra-Orthodox Wikipedia' Is Literally Rewriting History

Omer Benjakob, Haaretz, March 1, 2018

A new initiative aimed at bringing Wikipedia to the ultra-Orthodox community is making waves in Israel due to what many take to be the crude manner it has edited out content deemed unsuitable for the community.

Called Hamichlol (“the entirety”), the Hebrew-language project uses the “wiki” technology found at the root of Wikipedia to create a parallel and Haredi-friendly version of the online encyclopedia for the growing number of ultra-Orthodox connecting to the internet in Israel. ...

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.pr ... -1.5866754
Like most (all?) of Benjakob's articles, this is a "premium" article on a website that allows only a limited number of free reads every month.

The gist is that a Haredi ("ultra-Orthodox") group is rewriting Wikipedia articles (from he.wiki) to better suit their religious beliefs. Because they don't approve of women in government, for example, their photo of the Israeli cabinet is missing all the female ministers (see below, with captions from Haaretz). Some articles, such as "Zooarchaeology", include red strike-throughs where the Wikipedia text was deleted.

Israel's 34th government, with the women edited out.

The original image. Spot the differences.

Heh.
This reminds me of one of my WP....eh, ...adversaries, who self identify on his user page as a Chabad (T-H-L) Rabbi (T-H-L), insisting on referring to me as he/him. (I identify on my user page as a female.)

When I complained to him, he replied something like that was how he always called his students....He was told by an admin or two that he must refer to me as a female,.........and he still continued to call me he/him!

Not until, I think it was the third, or fourth admin told him in no uncertain words that he would be blocked if he continued....he finally stopped... (Now he keeps telling people that I am excessively sensitive about not being taken for a man.....I wonder how he would have liked to be referred to as a female? ...which I was very tempted to do, until admins stepped in....)

Ah, well, I guess there is finally a suitable wiki for men like him......

[Poetlister]

I will simply say that there are groups of Haredim whose Judaism bears more resemblance to the Taliban than to anything I've ever encountered, either in synagogue or in my religious studies.

How many people have these Haredim beheaded?

[Midsize Jake]

How many people have these Haredim beheaded?

Perhaps he just meant that they take a similar approach to "modern secular culture," which is to say they reject it outright, and are also prone to violence, often perpetrating it in the name of Gawd. (Why they spell it that way, I have no idea.)

[Malik Shabazz]

I will simply say that there are groups of Haredim whose Judaism bears more resemblance to the Taliban than to anything I've ever encountered, either in synagogue or in my religious studies.

How many people have these Haredim beheaded?

In how many states have they enjoyed unchecked power?

[DHeyward]

I will simply say that there are groups of Haredim whose Judaism bears more resemblance to the Taliban than to anything I've ever encountered, either in synagogue or in my religious studies.

How many people have these Haredim beheaded?

In how many states have they enjoyed unchecked power?

A better question is "In how many states have they seized unchecked power through violence and intimation." It seems to me anyway that unchecked power generally is not passively given to enjoy, but seized after lopping off a couple hundred heads or so. Kinda takes the opposition down a notch or two.

it's one thing to edit women out of a picture, but it's not even close to an acid attack or honor killing. "Taking them out of the picture" seems to have vastly different meanings.

[Poetlister]

Indeed, honour killings are an idea totally inimical to Judaism of any strain. Even the death penalty administered by a court of law was used with great reluctance, although its deterrence effect was recognised: "A Sanhedrin that puts a man to death once in seven years is called a murderous one. R. Eleazar ben Azariah says 'Or even once in 70 years.' R. Tarfon and R. Akiva said, 'If we had been in the Sanhedrin no death sentence would ever have been passed'; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said: 'If so, they would have multiplied murderers in Israel.'"

[Malik Shabazz]

I will simply say that there are groups of Haredim whose Judaism bears more resemblance to the Taliban than to anything I've ever encountered, either in synagogue or in my religious studies.

How many people have these Haredim beheaded?

In how many states have they enjoyed unchecked power?

A better question is "In how many states have they seized unchecked power through violence and intimation." It seems to me anyway that unchecked power generally is not passively given to enjoy, but seized after lopping off a couple hundred heads or so. Kinda takes the opposition down a notch or two.

it's one thing to edit women out of a picture, but it's not even close to an acid attack or honor killing. "Taking them out of the picture" seems to have vastly different meanings.

Visit the West Bank some time. Since you have such a pollyanna-ish view of Jews and violence.

Indeed, honour killings are an idea totally inimical to Judaism of any strain. Even the death penalty administered by a court of law was used with great reluctance, although its deterrence effect was recognised: "A Sanhedrin that puts a man to death once in seven years is called a murderous one. R. Eleazar ben Azariah says 'Or even once in 70 years.' R. Tarfon and R. Akiva said, 'If we had been in the Sanhedrin no death sentence would ever have been passed'; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said: 'If so, they would have multiplied murderers in Israel.'"

You've both drunk the Kool-Aid. A powerless group that had been exiled from its homeland claimed that it had never executed anybody. Suuuure. And I have a bridge I can sell you.

Like Tarfon and Akiva, if I serve on a jury, it will never pass a death sentence. That doesn't mean the United States is a peaceful country or that it doesn't execute too many people. Why do people lose their critical reading skills when the text is ancient?

[Poetlister]

The previous post is not only tendentious, it's way

[iii]

The previous post is not only tendentious, it's way

Some might say the same thing about your posts? Don't be a Hersch.

[Poetlister]

Don't be a Hersch.

I find the comparison insulting.