“At present, the lede and the overall presentation state, in Wikipedia’s voice, that Israel is committing genocide, although that claim is highly contested,” Wales said. He added that a “neutral approach would begin with a formulation such as: ‘Multiple governments, NGOs, and legal bodies have described or rejected the characterization of Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide.’” Currently, the article bases its position that a genocide exists on conclusions from United Nations investigations, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, and “multiple human rights groups,” among others.
There is a lot wrong with this statement. The reason Israel can commit these war crimes with impunity is because of tolerance such as giving them a stage in the UN. It is not our job or Wikipedias to give a platform to enablers of massive human suffering. In fact, it is just the opposite.
You last point is also extremely questionable because there are numerous Wikipedia clones and competitors.
Can you specify which alternatives you’re talking about?
Also, I don’t know what’s specifically questionable about any of this. I haven’t disputed or justified anything. I’ve just expressed a contrary opinion on tactics.
https://blog.reputationx.com/wikipedia-alternatives
Edit: I will give you some feedback as to what I thought was ill conceived in your statement.
First, I think beginning with “wrong” and making a subjective statement that is not what Wikipedia or Wikimedia actually have as their mission started you off on the wrong foot.
Second, a minority of actors has not prevented consensus.
Third, the UN does not have to allow war criminals a platform.