Joker@sh.itjust.works to World News@lemmy.worldEnglish · 6 days ago‘It’s not close’ - Israel committing genocide concludes Wikipedia ending editorial debatewww.middleeastmonitor.comexternal-linkmessage-square86fedilinkarrow-up1704arrow-down130cross-posted to: [email protected][email protected][email protected]
arrow-up1674arrow-down1external-link‘It’s not close’ - Israel committing genocide concludes Wikipedia ending editorial debatewww.middleeastmonitor.comJoker@sh.itjust.works to World News@lemmy.worldEnglish · 6 days agomessage-square86fedilinkcross-posted to: [email protected][email protected][email protected]
minus-squareIndustryStandard@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up59arrow-down1·edit-26 days agoICJ so slow Wikipedia writes down the conclusion in advance.
minus-squarejagged_circle@feddit.nllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up12·5 days agoICJ already released a preliminary statement affirming that its likely a genocide. They just have a mountain of evidence to review
minus-squarejonne@infosec.publinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up14·6 days agoUnfortunately they can’t quote Wikipedia directly in their work, but they can use the sources in the article.
minus-squarejagged_circle@feddit.nllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·5 days agoWut? I think the South African report is the source for Wikipedia.
minus-squarejonne@infosec.publinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·5 days agoIt’s a joke about how you can’t quote Wikipedia directly in papers, etc.
minus-squareGreyEyedGhost@lemmy.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7·5 days agoI imagine you actually could count their ruling as it’s an original work, based on research from other papers. Which I find kind of funny, because that would mess up so many professors…
ICJ so slow Wikipedia writes down the conclusion in advance.
ICJ already released a preliminary statement affirming that its likely a genocide. They just have a mountain of evidence to review
Unfortunately they can’t quote Wikipedia directly in their work, but they can use the sources in the article.
Wut? I think the South African report is the source for Wikipedia.
It’s a joke about how you can’t quote Wikipedia directly in papers, etc.
I imagine you actually could count their ruling as it’s an original work, based on research from other papers. Which I find kind of funny, because that would mess up so many professors…