The best thing wikimedia can do is make sure Wikipedia is unbiased as possible in sensitive topics - not just really on random online editors to notice things but to actually actively check for biases and omissions.
It depends. Often staff are a lot more even handed than volunteer editors because you have to be a bit weird and love moderating to do it voluntarily, but it's pretty normal to do it as a job.
StackOverflow has this problem (or had, before it died) - the mods were hugely invested in closing questions for basically any reason, so normal users ended up hating it and the company couldn't make any changes to improve things because whenever they tried the mods revolted.
It's not as much of an issue with Wikipedia because most Wikipedia users aren't actually editing articles and running into any moderation issues.
Ask yourself how neutral this is, and it of course isn't neutral at all by Wikipedia standards (obviously both parties don't agree, and one party's viewpoint is not represented ... at all, which is normally a hard no on wikipedia) and then look at the discussion page, to see it become 100x worse, and to see openly racist viewpoints that I'm surprised they allow even on discussion pages.
What's especially troublesome is that one side (the one who's viewpoint is the only represented on the page) is totally opposed to even discussing the existence of the other side.
Traveling to another country against their laws with the express purpose of killing their citizens is terrorism, even if your government doesn't see it that way. Every lift of a finger, every breath, every thought, every moment had by an American in Vietnam was a crime. Frankly, participating voluntarily makes one truly irredeemable.
Irredeemable? Yikes. Strong disagree, not sure it’s worth debating the more nuanced aspects. There’s a whole lot more to the conflict than you are acknowledging, and it was very messy on all sides.
Yikes. Are you related to someone who invaded Vietnam? It seems like it. And I don't much see nuance in mass murder. Injecting nuance into very clear black-and-white moral situations is a common tactic of people who have done bad things. Holocaust deniers lure people into their racist views by starting with "well, it was a little more nuanced than that."
Even worse, you wanted to drive-by shut me down by saying there's "nuance" and just leaving it at that. Do you think I'm incapable of thought, or do you actually not understand the issue yourself, and that's why you refuse to take a stance either way? What specific nuances am I missing? Please, nuance the Vietnam war. Please morally justify joining the military with the purpose of invading someone else's country and killing their citizens.
Iran's climate is not really connected to the Mediterranean sea - they are 2000km from Lebanon, just because they have a silver of land that happened to fall under mediaterrian classifcation doesn't mean they are mediaterrean
My point was that while it isn’t part of the Mediterranean as a geographic region, the Mediterranean as a climate zone does extend into Iran. And the article is about that climatical and agricultural zone.
I understood your point I just don't find it convincing. For example modern olive (staple of mediaterrian for thousand of years) don't come close to Iran (according to the map on Wikipedia). If you look at map of predicted future water stress you will see it includes far more than mediaterrian climate (or mediaterrian). Thus my main point - it doesn't make sense to call it "Mediterranean Water Collapse"
I mean, if they talk about the UK and the Mediterranean, why not Iran too? Hell, let's toss in some other countries not on the Mediterranean while we're at it. Japan maybe?
reply