[tivert]

>> In a related move, the platform’s editors recently voted to declare the Anti-Defamation League “generally unreliable” on the subject, adding it to their list of banned and partially banned sources.

> Kinda surprising it didn't happen earlier. The ADL ruined their image when they stopped concerning themselves with defamation and started going after political opposition. Once you dip your toes into the nationalist politics cesspool, there really is no going back.

Wikipedia still considers the ADL reliable for "going after political opposition" in the "nationalist politics cesspool": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per....

It's super clear that, on Wikipedia, "the rules of the game became the game." Content arguments are won through pretty biased debates behind the scenes on the "reliability" of sources.

[talldayo]

They very much call out the unreliability of the ADL on the topic of modern Zionism and topics concerning the Israel-Palistine conflict. I think that is the proper path of caution to take, unless they prove to be as fickle about world politics as they are holding Israel accountable.

Whatever you perceive to be the process for debating these topics, I do not think the ADL (or similar organizations) has any relevant contributions to make on Wikipedia's presentation of world events. Allowing these borderline-lobbyist organizations to claim anything with impunity is how the Internet's encyclopedia becomes nobody's encyclopedia.