Recent researchNot started ·
Resources |
An article from the Jewish News Syndicate was written about this publication from the University of Haifa.
Drawing on in-depth interviews with 19 Jewish veteran editors of the English Wikipedia, this study outlines a four-phase model of editorial engagement: idealistic entry, emergent friction, emotional erosion, and adaptive coping or emerging silences.
I found the JNS article link on the "In the media" draft page, but I think a academic analysis of this is warranted.
It does include references to several sources considered marginally reliable or generally unreliable on WP:RS/P, such as the Anti Defamation League (WP:ADLAS) and Pirate Wires (WP:PIRATEWIRES), though considering that this article is centred around the Wikipedia community, I think deferring judgement to the community compiled list should be avoided. Mitchsavl (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- The link to the paper is here. I don't really understand what you mean by "I think deferring judgement to the community compiled list should be avoided."
- There is something that has to be said about the academic article. It is absolutely one-sided, in the sense that no Palestinian or Arab editors are interviewed. It might even be implied by the paper (or just inferred by this reader) that the author thinks the Palestinian/Arab/Muslim side is not worth considering. Stating this outright, the idea might be "How could Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims know anything about anti-Semitism?" Actually, I'd think they would know a lot about discrimination, hate, and even genocide. It could be essentially the same story, just with the ethnic/religious labels switched. In short, if we're not careful we could be stepping in some deep shit here. Let User:HaeB decide, maybe with the help of User:Bri and User:Piotrus and others. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:51, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- forgot to ping @Mitchsavl: Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:24, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- About "deferring judgement should be avoided": I think the op meant that the deprecated sources list should not be applied in this case. If followed blindly, it could lead to a sort of trapdoor where any critique of the community's decision-making process would be off limits to consider in order to re-evaluate the community's decision-making process. I'm not sure I follow it to that conclusion, but I do appreciate the thought that we should be extra receptive to criticism in our internal discussions, especially when coming from an academic source. To put it bluntly, I don't think WP:RSPS was ever intended to be prescriptive in terms of winnowing what we choose to present in the Recent research column. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- I have never been active in the modern Isreali politics, and I am trying my best to avoid historical too. I fully agree with the 4-step trajectory described, but if the article tries to argue it affects only Isreali editors, it's obviously is quite biased (and frankly that pattern can be generalized to most contentious topics). So in essence the research is finding that "some editors burned out after editing a contentious area for some time". Riiiight. News. Let's move on to the next paper about "Wikipedia articles about US politics can be edited by anyone", "Fooian propaganda actors are trying to edit Wikipedia" or "Zooian companies are spamming Wikipedia". Sigh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:02, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
|
|---|
