Was the Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital explosion caused by Israel? (According to Wikipedia within 30 days)
140
3.2k
3.2k
resolved Nov 16
100%96%
Wikipedia will be ambiguous
0.3%
Yes
3%
No

Resolution will be based on the Wikipedia articles for the hospital and the explosion.

Resolves "Yes" if Wikipedia clearly states that the explosion was caused by Israel, "No" if it clearly states that it was not caused by Israel, and "Wikipedia will be Ambiguous" if it does not clearly present one claim or the other as true.

Will resolve early if Wikipedia consistently takes a yes or no stance before market close. Resolution ignores Wikipedia vandalism, as defined by my judgement.

I will not trade in this market.

Get Ṁ600 play money

🏅 Top traders

#NameTotal profit
1Ṁ545
2Ṁ501
3Ṁ449
4Ṁ434
5Ṁ407
Sort by:

Thanks for participating, everyone! I considered making a sequel market with a later end-date, but decided I'd rather not run it myself.

I hope other people do make more markets on this subject though! Right now the biggest markets on the site just resolve to the creator's determination, and I feel like having more markets about external neutral sources is good for controversial questions like this.

Do you guys think Wikipedia will stay ambiguous in perpetuity, if they haven't taken a stance after this long? I feel like it's unlikely too much new evidence comes to light, at this point.

@Joshua I'd bet it will remain ambiguous. Hard to imagine we get dramatically better information about the event than we have now.

Plus, most positions the article can take fall under "ambiguous":

  1. Presents Israel causing it as unlikely

  2. Presents Israel causing it as equally likely as other explanations

  3. Presents Israel causing it as more likely than other explanations

The unambiguous options are actually only the extreme ends of a larger continuum.

It'd be more interesting to include more in-between options in the market. Unfortunately that may be impossible to resolve in a fair way if the final text ends up in a gray area between two options.

Still interesting as it was, though! At one point I thought there was a large chance this market would resolve "no". Thanks for the good question!

How would this resolve if it stays this way?

  • The Claims of both sides are clear and certain.

  • It does state that it has not been confirmed.

Is it really ambiguous, or any of the provided prediction options?

I think right now Wikipedia is not clearly stating that it was or was not Israel that caused the explosion so this is likely to resolve to "ambiguous" unless I'm missing something.

Infobox has updated from

to

The text currently says:

@chrisjbillington and since reverted! Though the text is now emphasising the growing consensus a bit more.

bought Ṁ500 of Yes NO

Why do ppl keep betting up “YES”? There’s no way it will ~unambiguously~ blame Israel at this point?

@BenjaminShindel Yeah, wiki wont but still. Fighting for the purpose!

@GmailAccountde24 Prediction markets can sometimes affect reality but not in this case 😆

@BenjaminShindel all of these questions that say things like "definitively" and "unambiguously" need to be resolved reasonably if their creators value their reputation as good resolvers, which will mean tolerating some nonzero amount of hedging or qualification. I don't think @Joshua will throw this market over a technicality, and have been betting accordingly.

Making this market was perhaps a risky move for my resolution rating average 😅

@Joshua Ha, this is a prediction, not a threat, I just think you're a reasonable guy!

Yeah not you, but I figure no matter how this resolves someone wil be upset hahaha. Hopefully more consensus is reached over the next month!

In the meantime I recommend savvy bettors keep an eye on the talk page, they've got some relevant discussion ongoing there.

@Joshua That discussion led me to check out the article on the Arabic Wikipedia, which, well, compare and contrast (Google chrome translation):

@chrisjbillington holy shit, someone should make a version of this market for that article...

@Joshua Shotgun

@Joshua Arabics speaking factss

@chrisjbillington I didnt understand a thing from this text

boughtṀ100Yes YES

@GmailAccountde24 nice username lol

bought Ṁ100 of Yes YES
bought Ṁ328 of No YES

The opening summary on the Explosion Wikipedia page is now much closer to a "No" statement, imo:
"There is strong evidence that the explosion was caused by the failed launch of a Palestinian rocket laden with fuel, with the majority[13][14][15] of independent experts and analysts stating that the damage is more consistent with a fireball from a rocket than an Israeli bomb.[16][17][18][19]"

edit: which has since been removed. The edits continue.

@day2f This is really now a market on whether Wikipedia has a strong leftist/anti-Israel bias. We are much more sure about what happened than about what Wikipedia will say.

More related questions