<OT> ubuntu bad press

Avi Greenbury lists at avi.co
Tue Aug 30 16:02:39 UTC 2011

Basil Chupin wrote:

> But then, I am more than disappointed in the Wikipedia which has now 
> been sanitised to completely remove any traces of the truth of what 
> happened to the Palestinians. If one only had the foresight at the
> time then one would have saved a copy of what was posted at the time.

It's a wiki, you can view the history.
> What was posted there some years ago was that David Ben-Gurion, the 
> first prime minister of Israel, was a leader of a *terrorist* *group* 
> (the Zionists)

It was a Zionist terrorist group, yes. Not all Zionists were, or indeed
are, terrorists even by the loosest definitions of the word.

> who conducted their terrorist activities against the British armed
> forces in that region. No "ifs" or "buts" - but a specific statement
> that the Zionists were *terrorists* (and so was Golda Meir).

The two more popular terrorist groups are still well documented on

They're still mentioned in the page on Ben Gurion and on Golda Meir.

> All refrences to the Zionists being a terrorist organisation has now 
> been edited out.

Haganah, the more moderate of the two, isn't branded a terrorist
organisation, but it is mentioned that Irgun are perceived as a
terrorist organisation. 

Anyway, I've no real intention of discussing that on here, I've only
replied because I think you're missing the point of Wikipedia somewhat
in a really common way.

In order to qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia, information does not
need to be *correct*, it needs to be *verifiable*. The point of
Wikipedia is not to diseminate new and original research, or to push a
new revolutionary viewpoint on something. It is supposed to be in
agreement with the greatest number of works of reference, and only aim
for correctness where those disagree. Even then, each commonly-held
point of view should be included (since each is verifiable and it
doesn't matter which is correct).

Wikipedia's somewhat ambitios aim is to be a sum of current human
knowledge, not the means for its advancement.

If you feel that the general consensus that the term 'paramilitary' is
apt for the Irgun and Haganah is incorrect, then you need to be
convincing those sources from which Wikipedia seeks verification -
other encyclopedias, historians etc.

Yes, it doesn't help that Wikipedia has a culture that actively
discourages contribution. 


More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list