Wiki-Wars

[Positivist]

As everyone knows, the wiki system is the first place the average person turns for information on a subjects they are unfamiliar with. It is important that if we are to draw a larger audience to the far left, that we edit topics concerning socialism and alter them to fit a socialist point of view. This also applies to detailing alternative methods to economics in economic pages. The entire wiki system needs to be confronted by multiple sources and I was wondering who would be interested.

[Q]

Wiki needs no such thing, thank you very much.

Wikipedia is supposed to be scientific resource that presents information in the most neutral way possible.

The underlying (more or less on a philosophical level) issue here is the dichotomy between science and myth. Science is knowledge that does not discriminate in who it empowers, thus it empowers everyone. Myth, on the contrary, is knowledge that empowers the few that enables them to gain an edge against the rest of humanity. Religion is a well known example of this.

But quite often the left acts in a similar way, preferring to enforce its myth, of whatever story it likes to tell, on the rest of the working class. This is the essence of sectarian politics.

So, does "waging a war" on Wikipedia, to enforce a more leftwing view upon it, prove to be a good thing for us, the working class? Asking the question is really answering it.

The method of the left is to enforce a scientific method upon Wikipedia - and really in all spheres of life - if we are to empower our class and indeed all of humanity.

[Kenco Smooth]

Science is knowledge that does not discriminate in who it empowers, thus it empowers everyone.

I think I'd disagree with the notion that scientific knowledge doesn't enter into social power plays and politics and enable a few but otherwise a big ol' :thumbup:

[Positivist]

Wiki needs no such thing, thank you very much.

Wikipedia is supposed to be scientific resource that presents information in the most neutral way possible.

The underlying (more or less on a philosophical level) issue here is the dichotomy between science and myth. Science is knowledge that does not discriminate in who it empowers, thus it empowers everyone. Myth, on the contrary, is knowledge that empowers the few that enables them to gain an edge against the rest of humanity. Religion is a well known example of this.

But quite often the left acts in a similar way, preferring to enforce its myth, of whatever story it likes to tell, on the rest of the working class. This is the essence of sectarian politics.

So, does "waging a war" on Wikipedia, to enforce a more leftwing view upon it, prove to be a good thing for us, the working class? Asking the question is really answering it.

The method of the left is to enforce a scientific method upon Wikipedia - and really in all spheres of life - if we are to empower our class and indeed all of humanity.

You read the wikipedia information on communism and tell me if you think its "scientific." I suppose that ultimately where we diverge is in our understanding of perspectives. You hold a "neutral", "objective" truth to be recorded simply because it is politically correct. Check out the quotes pertaining to communism on wikipedia and explain the science of it to me. I am curious where you think I advocate asserting myths. I am not talking about changing historical accounts, but rather of more accurately representing socialist theories on these cites. There is no need nor ambition to "enforce a myth" on wikipedia, the truth will do, and I think we know the truth of our own theories better than whoever is currently editing it. Hmm a group of people taking initiative to alter records on their beliefs so that their beliefs are better reflected, didn't know that was authoritarian.

[Q]

You read the wikipedia information on communism and tell me if you think its "scientific."
Quite obviously this is not the case. Rightwing myths dominate on these pages. What I'm saying is that our answer to such distortions shouldn't be to counterpose leftwing myths to it, but to enforce a scientific method instead.


I am not talking about changing historical accounts, but rather of more accurately representing socialist theories on these cites.
If well referenced, this would indeed be a step forward.

[Manic Impressive]

I agreed with Q first but actually looking at the page for communism


In Marxist theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism), pure communism is a specific stage of historical development that inevitably emerges from the development of the productive forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productive_forces) that leads to a superabundance of material wealth, allowing for distribution based on need (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_accord ing_to_his_need) and social relations based on freely associated individuals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_association_%28communism_and_anarchism%29).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#cite_note-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#cite_note-1) The exact definition of communism varies, and it is often mistakenly, in general political discourse, used interchangeably with socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism); however, Marxist theory contends that socialism is just a transitional stage on the road to communism. Leninism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leninism) adds to Marxism the notion of a vanguard party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguard_party) to lead the proletarian revolution and to secure all political power after the revolution for the working class, for the development of universal class consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_consciousness) and worker participation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_democracy), in a transitional stage between capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism) and socialism.
Council communists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_communist) and non-Marxist libertarian communists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_communist)
Bahahaha what a joke this is blatantly written by a stalinist

[Q]

I agreed with Q first but actually looking at the page for communism


Bahahaha what a joke this is blatantly written by a stalinist

My point still stands. Stalinist mythology should be fought against as strongly as rightwing bullshit ;)

[Positivist]

Ok so I think this was all just a misunderstanding. I was referring to revising socialist related topics to better represent our views and to present socialism as a legitimate economic alternative. Now that that's cleared up is anyone interested? I don't know what the requirements to edit wiki affiliated sites are but I am sure we are permitted to make any edit that is scientifically enforced. And Q I haven't really examined the historical accounts of communism but do they need to be scientifically revisited as well?

[Q]

And Q I haven't really examined the historical accounts of communism but do they need to be scientifically revisited as well?

Depends on what historical period we're talking about I guess. But it is clear that people like Lars Lih, who does academic research in the history of the Bolshevik party, do a lot to shake the "tree of wisdom" that the left has claimed for so long as more and more research points to how different the Bolsheviks were from what is commonly believed on the left.

I'm sure there are many more subjects.

[The Idler]

I find it ironic that your username is Positivist. If you want to wage a non-positivist war on a wiki do it on one other than Wikipedia. There are plenty of left-wing ones out there.

[Positivist]

I find it ironic that your username is Positivist. If you want to wage a non-positivist war on a wiki do it on one other than Wikipedia. There are plenty of left-wing ones out there.

I love when people skip over the entire thread and comment anyway. In the thread I clearly state that I was referring to accurately representing our own views on these sites, and I then discussed revising historical accounts which currently consisted of right wing mythology. This isn't even a long thread you have to be kidding me.

[The Idler]

tbh, I think I might have misunderstood positivism

[Book O'Dead]

The objective, I think, ought to be to encourage critical thinking and raise working class consciouness. As long as socialists prevail in discussions about Marxian economics and the class struggle we have a better than average chance of being heard.

[Positivist]

tbh, I think I might have misunderstood positivism

Well I'm not sure if that's the case. I believe in the enforcement of scientific understanding on these sites just for clarification, and positivism is based on scientific understanding.

[The Idler]

By the way, there's talk of a left-wing wiki at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/broadleftwiki/

[Positivist]

By the way, there's talk of a left-wing wiki at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/broadleftwiki/

Yea I've heard about a few of them but I don't think they get much traffic. After reading some of the wiki entries on the mainstream wiki system th:y didn't seem to reflect the true initiatives of socialism.

[The Idler]

Such as which entries didn't reflect the true intiative of socialism?

[Luís Henrique]

I don't think it is possible to actually improve Wikipedia. There are no actual controls to ensure quality content won't be replaced with garbage, except good contributors systematically weeding bad content out.

In other words, unless you are willing to perform slave labour for Jimbo Wales, you cannot expect it to improve. And if you are, you have to take it seriously, systematically perusing the relevant pages in order to see what is going on wrong.

Not a fascinating life project, to be honest.

Other issue is that we quite probably have not enough consensus among us to make an actual collective effort to improve it, and if we tried we would quite probably start edit wars among us on sensitive issues.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

positivism is based on scientific understanding.

Not that I am informed of; positivism AFAIK is a phylosophical position.

Luís Henrique