Left Wikipedia

Our opponents have things like ConservaPedia, MetaPedia, RationalWiki and so on, why don't we have a response to it?

Imo we could be the ones to benefit the most from such a project.

Attached: Ycl-uk-1923logo.jpg (220x215, 27.08K)

Other urls found in this thread:


We need something neutral. Also it shouldn't be left wikipedia if it is done because that would just denote bias. It should have a more objective name.

It should, and imo it should raise the bar of online political encyclopedias, well-sourced and well-written. Because linking to a political encyclopedia is useless, but learning new information and learning how to validate that information is precious.

ok brainstorm of names:

How will you resolve the systemic problem of admin cliques and self-serving rules enforcement that ruined Wikipedia and whatever RationalWiki was ever attempting to be? What about deciding what is a fact and what is a reliable source?

Larry Sanger attempted to address the issue of the inmates running the asylum with Citizendium, but its growth eventually floundered.

He had:
-all contributors to use their real names
-strict moderation for unprofessional behavior with "gentle expert oversight" of everyday contributors
-a peer-review process for "approved articles" involving topic experts with credentials

Citizendium's model is basically an anti-anonymous technocrat model, and I imagine real information can be gamed on it in the same manner that it is gamed at university humanities and economics departments. In fact it is probably beholden to the very same interests as those departments.

What the left should really be striving for in an encyclopedia is a Progressive encyclopedia. Progressive in the original sense that it is most interested in empiricism.

Its a website not a government

Look for good books that are left-wing or contain relevant information for left-wing ideas

And how is it decided or who gets to decide what are "good books"? Do you see how this isn't trivial?

none of this matters bro. write an article, give your sources and if someone has a problem with any of them, it can be debated on a case-by-case situation. If we develop any general criteria, we can develop from those

honestly stop worrying about stupid shit like that, you sound like the stereotypical lefty undergrad who becomes dead weight in actual movements because you can only see the word in terms of the critiques of this and that and the paradigms of something epistemological something shit that you learn in college, and you end up so caught up in abstract concepts that you'll think a website having a moderation teams = some oppressive power structure

are you going to write an article about the labor movement in the South in the early 20th century? find a decent academic source or a well-established leftist writer to back things up, write based on their books

just shut up, we're not programming robots to do these things for us, we're people with common sense and the hability to debate things on the spot instead of coming up with decrees from the get go.

Or perhaps I'm someone who's become hopelessly disillusioned with wikis because of my close observation and participation in their communities over the years. Seriously, rationalwiki was supposed to be the wiki we're all talking about in here. It got taken over by cliques and became every bit as embarrassing as conservapedia.

Answer this at least: how do we keep liberal shit off the pedia? And what happens when we get an edit war between tankies and leftcoms?

How did that happens? Was it actually taken over or was the original team always shitty to begin with?

Why wouldn't RationalWiki work?

how about this, we use a vanguard of leftpol certified posters with different ideologies in order to resolve disputes and approve content, we balance out this vanguard between tankies, anarkids, and leftcoms, their role would be one of moderation and correction, they wouldn't excesively moderate everything, but they would be there to prevent liberalism, fascism, and right wing pieces

Look at it.
Leftist "wikipedias" are embarassing, because you realize just how insane leftists are when their ideas are laid bare.

What "leftist" ideas are those exactly? I'm waiting.

Because rationalwiki is a liberal echo chamber and full of ideology. They are more like democratopedia with their idpol and Huffington Post tier political "satire".


What liberal shit are we talking about? Making an article about Healthcare in the U.S. and defending its expansion is one thing, making an article about how Marx was a misogynist or a racist is a different thing. One can be tolerated and supported to a degree, as long as we're reminded that the overall political orientation of the website should be more focused on wide socioeconomic transition than minor electoral gains, the other should be banned as if it were right-wing vandalism.

As far as edit wars, I think they could be productive as long as the right mechanisms and moderation are in place to make sure no one is just shutting the other side down. We could simply track which articles are getting too many irregular edits and increase the editing standards there, and just other minor things like giving preference to whatever edit links to verifiable sources (as opposed to just vaguely giving an entire book as source for several claims, as rightists on wikipedia like to do).

So white male isn't an identity or something that has defined right wing politics? Get your head out of your idealogue ass.

Nobody takes any of those wikis seriously.

True, very true

There have been dozen of attempts over the years but every one I've contributed to quickly runs out of steam. There are dozen of wikis like this, unless your topic is followed by a dedicated and unified user base; which the left is most certainly not.

Well, it seems there's an attempt to revive Marxistpedia:

The recent activity is spambots: marxistpedia.org/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&days=30&from=

Whatever happened to that rebirth of Bunkermag, Spectre Rouge I think it was? Along with other normalfag-outreach programs like the DCMfCP NSABook group, a site along its lines could form the foundation for something Zig Forums-oriented to accompany drier resources like marxists.org and infoshop.org

It was absolutely a takeover. RationalWiki's history is split into three main periods:
1. A semi-secret, closed coordination point for trolling Conservapedia.

Dialectapedia would be a nice name. I feel like it'd be good to fill it with theory anybody can access and learn from.