What happens here?
I know the founder is a lolbertarian or something, what about the community? How influential are paid shill editors?
What happens here?
Other urls found in this thread:
rt.com
rt.com
bbc.com
wikipedia.fivefilters.org
off-guardian.org
craigmurray.org.uk
metro.co.uk
haaretz.com
mondoweiss.net
twitter.com
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
based jimmy wales
In the Italian wiki there were fascists literally rewriting history to fit their narrative, it probably happens in all the other wikis as well.
Jimmy Wales obsessively vandalises leftist and anti-war articles with his "Philip Cross" account, and whenever someone confronts him on Twitter over it he gives a smug dismissive response.
rt.com
rt.com
bbc.com
wikipedia.fivefilters.org
off-guardian.org
craigmurray.org.uk
metro.co.uk
haaretz.com
mondoweiss.net
twitter.com
Can confirm, Croatian wikipedia is right-wing/fascist propaganda.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
A "famous" case of corporate bias / paid shills on wikipedia.
...
The owner is a liberal and most of the senior editors are too. Anti-socialist rhetoric anywhere remotely related to socialism, even obsure pages about military tech are crammed with 'soviet oppression' anecdotes that have either no citations or joke citations. However because he's a typical twat who can't be bothered to learn other languages, russian speaking wiki pages are generally the opposite and usually far more informative than english ones. For example the battle of Brest fortress. The English wiki plays it off as a minor skirmish where the 'nazi supersoldiers' cornered soviet soldiers who were being forced to fight at gun-point… y'know the same old Enemy at the Gates crap.
Meanwhile the Russian wiki page presents it as it was, a major siege that only fully ended after a full month of bloody resistance.
Wales is a massive unironic zionist.
Wikipedia is a mixed bag. Its editors and bureaucracy are liberals and extremely picky on anything remotely marxist while anticommunist rhetorics gets a free pass on sourcing or shit like the archipelago of the gulag/black book of communism is fine.
On the other hand, there are quality articles and knowledge readily-available is revolutionary.
On the french wikipedia, we have many high quality informative articles but powertripping bureaucrats make it hard for anyone not fitting their narrative.
This interests me how the different regional versions of Wikipedia are governed so differently..
never stops making me laugh
Why do we still use Wikipedia instead of building an alternative?
Virtually every other political movement managed to do that, and we're smarter, stronger and taller than them.
I'm sure one exist though
The french have wikirouge.
So that's why US public transport is so god-awful… makes sense.
he's libertarian of course he's anti war
his writings and actions suggest he is more of a neo-con
This may be the biggest self-own of all time.
The wikipedia articles on left wing topics tend to be decent, actually. Might have something to do with marxist theory being relatively obscure, or that it gets treated kind of like a religion or fictional work. The ideas are presented as aspects of the theory rather than as facts in and of themselves, so there isn't really a debate to be had about them in that space. Conservatives and the like tend to balk at wikipedia because they deny reality and want their own selection of facts.
Not to say wikipedia is perfect. It has plenty of problems, just that the legitimate problems aren't the reason the alternate sites usually exist.
Because the mentality of competing with a thing instead of fixing it is capitalist ideology. Wikipedia should be around forever. The infrastructure's already there. It should just have its problems fixed and its existence guaranteed. There's no need to waste valuable labor and resoruces remaking what's already here. There's a reason it's "seize the means of production" and not "make our own means of production."
Boy are you reaching.
fuck off back to /r/neoliberal you retard
5/5 description, screencapped.
lmao most articles on soviet history are literal propaganda
I mean I guess the question is as to whether Wikipedia can be changed from the inside with exerted effort. Apparently fascists and socialists alike are able to basically seize control of regional versions of Wikipedia just because the English admins don't give much of a damn about them. So maybe there's something there.
Almost every source on the USSR is propaganda of one kind or another. Look at articles on theory and they're usually pretty straightforward if baby tier. It's nothing close to as bad as conservatives say it is about stuff like global warming.
You have a lot of concepts that you don't really understand in your head, and seeing you try to interpret the world through them is painful.
Only when it's not in imperialist interests.
J.Arch Getty, Zemskov and a shit ton of others would say otherwise. Citing Werth a dozen times and undoing any revisions that don't explicitly state Stalin as a monster is retarded.
Reminder that Wikipedia's anti-research rule says "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself, instead refer to reliable secondary sources that do so" Meaning that an author (ie. an anticommunist) who lies over sources or manipulates them can still be considered legitimate on Wikipedia.
Am I reading this correctly? They tell you to use authors reviewing sources as a source rather than primary sources??
Yes. Wikipedia is fucked
On Venezuela
The Spanish Wikipedia has both chavista and anti-chavista groups shitting up the articles (see: what happened on the Guaidó article, which led to the government banning Wikipedia for a couple of days)
The English Wikipedia has very few people even thinking about defending Maduro, and there's some shit that's so biased it's funny on some articles (but that can't really be contested).
Internet Leftism has now ceased to be completely embarassing to me. We have crossed the line to where it is just darkly hilarious.
I mean, seriously, you and the other fags here are saying Wikipedia must survive and that it can be changed from within lmao… Like we can overthrow wikipedia and wrest it from private control so it can finally embrace it's true Communist center! The idea that wikipedia is Communist is really a fucking gas, like a big surprise tank of mustard gas. This is a privately owned foundation that subsists on unpaid work gloriously named volunteering, and all of this unpaid work is of incredibly dubious value. We now have a website where you can find an idiot's take on absolutely anything! And not just any idiot, the combined, averaged idiocy of every idiot to have ever graced wikipedia!
Gone are the days of having to actually read a book to learn something, now you can read the skimmed content of a book, an addled, propogandized mind, and a news article. That doesn't even really do justice to the sort of half cocked "research" that wikipedia is entirely based on. Where else can you have a source of a source about a source to tell you what to think?
The only thing that wikipedia succeeds at is being a marker -or perhaps a monument- to human ignorance. The idea that a charity based, privately owned remixing of actual human knowledge could somehow transcend its own essence is fucking insane! It is compromised of all these shitty, innefficient things, but we have all been brainwashed to think these things are great! Although, some of you just seem to be coping by slathering this capitalist shitpile with ""Communist"" ideology.
Wikipedia is a bastardization of a Communist organization. It is composed of all these "good" things that are really just Capitalist bullshit made to placate, compensate, or otherwise misdirect the normal, logical functioning of the human mind. It is based on charity, which is a mockery of actual humam resource expenditure. Charity, on one hand, demands the exploited spend their hard earned wages, and when that isn't done for obvious reasons, it is now the fault of the masses that society has gone wrong. Then, on the other hand, charity rewards the rich for providing mercy to the poor ignorant masses, when all they have really done is return a portion of their exploited wealth back to the people.
Volunteering is practically the exact same, but it isn't obscured by money. It completely and utterly inneffective at any wide scale change. The vast majority of people have little to give, yet they are the ones that are supposed to sacrifice what little they have to support these programs, which don't even really work because everyone is so seperated.
The really extraordinarily gross part of wikipedia is that it is a bastardization of learning. Why search for great books to really learn about something when you can read what the average wikipedia contributor thought you should know? It is absolutely cancerous.
So just like anything else made by liberals?
I just included that to attack that part of Zig Forumss brain that loves to cope by finding every single little "communistic" detail in something. Shit, I honestly think something being red soothes them slightly.
But, no, everything made by liberals is not some "bastardization of Communism". They are organizations centered on private property, directly or indirectly.
Dumb opinions of its creator aside, the basic concept of wikipedia is sound and its infrastructure (and much of its information) is already present. Throwing it away because it fails your purity test is a huge waste of resources. It would be like tearing up a road not because it's in the way of a better construction project, but because capitalism built it. Some of you fuckers ITT are arguing like strawmen dreamt up by the feds to discredit the left.
Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. It's not supposed to be a source of original content, but an aggregator of the existing body of knowledge. The purpose of the site is not be accurate or true per se, but to accurately represent what is known or believed. Not every source of information has to be some pirate radio bringin' you da real troof from on-the-ground reporters. The point of communism is to build civilization, not just knock down capitalism, and having source-based knowledge aggregation is a useful tool if you can be arsed to understand what it is and what it is not. Don't criticize a library for not loaning you a bicycle.
Google the free software movement you fucking retard.
The whole point of wikipedia is to catalog what information already exists. A "proper" article (according to wikipedia's internal standards) extensively cites sources and provides a thorough overview of the subject. If you're not looking at the sources provided and reading further then you're not even using the site as intended by the people running it. The surface-level understanding is a product of larger cultural forces, which you should know.
A huge portion of technology is already operating on a communist model, in exactly the same way that a portion of feudal society was already operating on a capitalist model. An important facet of historical materialism is that technology plays an important role in what relations of production are viable. Infotech has (perhaps unexpectedly) created an environment where a communist mode of production can exist within a larger capitalist society (because the resources required to multiply information are so vastly small compared to the labor required to produce it). Communism as a mode of production or a set of relations of production already exists, and people like you ignore this to your own detriment. Your obnoxious and essentialist brand of purity is immeasurably more liberal than pointing out how the structure of a nominally and on-paper capitalist entity is actually structured more accordingly with communism as a mode of production. If you weren't a liberal you might attempt a material analysis instead of satisfying your smug self with looking to what people call themselves and calling it a fucking day.
carpooling is real socialism
Least retarded post ITT.
samefag
Wikipedia's articles on socialism and Marxism are almost single-handedly response for turning Zig Forums reddit, and most other socialist internet communities into complete fucking brainlets. The articles on Marxism in particular really aren't informative at all and reek of either Trotskyism or "Libertarian Marxism." The articles on socialism in general are borderline liberal.
wat
Does anyone know who's writing some of the pages on Marxist theory? They're written in such a strange style, like someone's undergraduate thesis. They're also obscenely fucking long.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
These pages have 600+ sources and are some of the longest articles I seen on Wikipedia. There's probably going to be substantial editing down the line
More like a reformatted economics 101 textbook with extra bits stuffed in.
I've been keeping my eye on the TRPF page for a while and it adds 50 new sources every month.
Just assume it's some anti-communist cretins trying to discredit Marx's ideas, and having to resort to reducing it to white noise. If you show that there is a lot of criticism, that means there is a lot to criticize, right?
Damn those are xbox hueg. I'll never read it to find out if it's pro or anti-Marxism tbh
Once again, this is why we need a LeftWiki. Attempting to out-autism these people is not worth it.
Liberal scum dominates. There are clear heads here and there, but they aren't in charge.
Very. "Politically correct" point of view is enforced quite strongly regardless of facts. Any dissent is suppressed from the top.
No.
Getty literally falsified primary sources to make USSR look as totalitarian as possible.
True.
We also need to restore Communist International.
The fuck are you talking about you bullshitting twat?
< uses SAGE so as not to get noticed
There are no upvotes, wanker.
For example, Getty altered (removed part of) NKVD order #00447 so as to create impression that Kremlin was ordering arrests of people for no reason.
Reminder that the literal Jewish Internet Defense Force go onto Wikipedia.
This, basically.
Jimbo has some dumb beliefs, but thankfully Wiki is mostly not built around those.
Objectivist almost always seem to back the whole "open contribution, free access thing" under some misguided believe in lolbertarianism. Thinking that making everything free means they are fighting "duh gooberment".
They will never not be funny.
There was a literal Fascist who backed the creation of Pirate Bay.
To all the people requesting left-wikis, you know there are already a billion left wing oriented wikis right? There are wikis for literally every political ideology ever, all of them have failed.
why?
citation/evidence needed.
what is that supposed to mean? I saged because your response is bullshit.
conservapedia and that liberal wiki are both going strong.
you mean """"""""""""""""""Rational""""""""""""""""""Wiki?
Yeah that cesspit
i once french kissed my chihuahua, i was 12
felt good
basic guide to dog ownership… don't fuck your dog.
sage is not a downvote, nigger
Lefty wiki when?
Why do you have that on your PC?
not him but i just fapped to this an hour ago
Yes, I know?
Just felt apprpriate. Don't know who diives is, and that is not a fuckin' pokemon, it's a damn dog.
Because in classic internet leftist style, these dipshits would just make the Wiki, write a few unnecessary entries about topics that needed little improvement from their Wikipedia's equivalent, and then sit back and expect everyone else to magically come together and do the hard work. Then after a couple of weeks they'd abandon the whole thing. You know, like 99% of the left-wing projects we see.
The right-wing stereotypes about how Leftists can't organize or manage shit are painfully proven true every time you see an attempt at creating something like this.
what succesful projects has the right made?
I don't follow right-wing shit but they do have two major Wikis, countless networks for content creators, Hatreon was becoming a major thing for them if it wasn't for VISA, etc.