Calling All Marxists: Wikipedia Needs You !

[Freeloader]

The following wikipedia articles amount to slander and distortion regarding marxism in varying degrees. This arises based on demographics i.e. those who have written and edited the articles are mostly anti-communists or those who see lenin as only a conspirator whos words cant be trusted so the black book of communism is valid but not lenin...etc etc

articles for attention:
search red terror
search marxist-leninist atheism
search marxist leninism



These articles are only what i have came across as displaying bias, but please feel free to add other articles. Also ill warn in advance that you should check and participate in the talk pages. 2 or more who agree on the talk page on an issue with one opposed counts as a consensus and validates an edit over a disputed matter. Constantly reverting in editing wars can lead to a ban.

[The Idler]

Slander and distortion of Marxism was what the Bolsheviks did. Don't do the same to Wikipedia.

[Le Socialiste]

Slander and distortion of Marxism was what the Bolsheviks did. Don't do the same to Wikipedia.

Seriously? Good grief...:rolleyes:

Care to elaborate on that?

Edit - Editing wikipedia isn't necessarily worth our time, tbh. There are other, more substantive things we can be doing.

[Per Levy]

that would as productive as a discussion in youtube comments, tbh.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Wikipedia editing would be useful as it is a highly used website, let's not make the mistake of ignoring something that is used so frequently by people on the internet.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Seriously? Good grief...:rolleyes:

Care to elaborate on that?

Edit - Editing wikipedia isn't necessarily worth our time, tbh. There are other, more substantive things we can be doing.

There are more substantive things that one can do other than edit Wikipedia, but I actually think that the idea behind Wikipedia is a good one. It always has puzzled me when people on this site speak negatively of it (note: negatively of it in the sense that anyone can get their grubby mits on a keyboard and edit the articles)

[Per Levy]

Wikipedia editing would be useful as it is a highly used website, let's not make the mistake of ignoring something that is used so frequently by people on the internet.

so? everything you edit there can and will be edited back, especially if non-leftists dont like your sources or are not "objective/neutral" enough. so again whats the point? it would be a fight against windmills.

[Luís Henrique]

If you want to lose your time in Wikipedia, go to the talk pages, say what is wrong, and complain about their system being biased against quality.

If no one is able to respond, then tentatively edit the article; if it is reversed, go back to the talk page and restart the discussion. This way at least you will be spared from blocks.

Also check the sources. If there are no sources, include a {{fact}} tag; if there are sources, check if the information in the article matches the information in the sourcee; if not, include a {{verification failed}} tag. Reverting those is more difficult for the other editor, as you can bring the issue to admin attention; and an article full of tags loses credibility.

Luís Henrique

[Fourth Internationalist]

I think it's a good idea to edit them. I became a communist from reading about it on Wikipedia. Luckily, I was not de-convinced from all the USSR, NK, etc stuff. Someone else probably would be.

[Dropdead]

This is just waste of time.

[Luís Henrique]

Also remember that if you are editing Wikipedia, you are working for free to the profit of Jimbo Wales and associates.

Luís Henrique

[Fourth Internationalist]

This is just waste of time.

I don't see why it would take so long. Just take 5 minutes if you have nothing to do and edit a few things. It can't hurt. It can help someone who is perhaps curious about what communism is, and perhaps learn the truth. It can also be a learning experience for yourself if you do in-depth research.

[VDS]

I think it'd be a great idea to edit Wikipedia. You can't underestimate exactly how many people use that site, and how many could potentially become communists if they read more balanced articles. I'm sure pages on the USSR/Communism/Socialism/Marx and all that are frequented by people who then go on read to read things that turn them away from the ideas.

The idea isn't to get EVERYONE who reads to turn, it's to reach those who could turn. I don't see why it's such a bad idea. Communists here and elsewhere are always crying an complaining about how history is distorted, how communism and leftist things are misrepresented, how there's unsubstantiated claims everywhere, the whole nine. Then when there's a fairly good idea to edit Wikipedia, it's shot down.

Maybe there's a reason why I'm not understanding this?

[Lucretia]

The following wikipedia articles amount to slander and distortion regarding marxism in varying degrees. This arises based on demographics i.e. those who have written and edited the articles are mostly anti-communists or those who see lenin as only a conspirator whos words cant be trusted so the black book of communism is valid but not lenin...etc etc

articles for attention:
search red terror
search marxist-leninist atheism
search marxist leninism



These articles are only what i have came across as displaying bias, but please feel free to add other articles. Also ill warn in advance that you should check and participate in the talk pages. 2 or more who agree on the talk page on an issue with one opposed counts as a consensus and validates an edit over a disputed matter. Constantly reverting in editing wars can lead to a ban.

The only problem is that Wikipedia is a total waste of time and, by the very nature of its editorial policies, bound to reflect the conventional wisdom on any number of topics like left politics. I have better things to do than to spend my time laboring on behalf of an "encyclopedia," only to see my work disappear by popular vote. Of it I am fortunate enough to see it remain, to hand over the rights to this work over to some shady "foundation."

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

I have better things to do than to spend my time laboring on behalf of an "encyclopedia," only to see my work disappear by popular vote. Of it I am fortunate enough to see it remain, to hand over the rights to this work over to some shady "foundation."

If that's so, why do you bother wasting your time on this thread?



If you want to lose your time in Wikipedia, go to the talk pages, say what is wrong, and complain about their system being biased against quality.

If no one is able to respond, then tentatively edit the article; if it is reversed, go back to the talk page and restart the discussion. This way at least you will be spared from blocks.

Also check the sources. If there are no sources, include a {{fact}} tag; if there are sources, check if the information in the article matches the information in the sourcee; if not, include a {{verification failed}} tag. Reverting those is more difficult for the other editor, as you can bring the issue to admin attention; and an article full of tags loses credibility.

Luís Henrique


I think your mentioning of the talk page is the right way to go here and the talk page is useful, because simply editing a page will result in it being counter-edited to remove what you posted almost straight away, but arguing a point out will result in a longer life span for your edits.

[Red Commissar]

When I was more active on wikipedia it was possible to get out some of the idiotic shit people'd cite from the Mises Institute since those were an obvious POV problem. There were some mainstream sources that worked better, even if they came off as critical still it would at least be more neutral in tone rather than sounding like a polemic.

Generally my policy was if it caused a persistent edit war I'd just leave. I mean I guess considering Jimbo is an objectivist it should be surprising it attracts those types. Though honestly when it comes to wiki I would say the socialism-related sites seem to be populated with more of the Democratic Socialist types, the ones that see themselves as socialists without having to deal with the "stigma" of communists (ie USSR and China) and anarchists (make total destroy).

[Skyhilist]

I've found that if you're not like an official wikipedia editor, even if you edit it and are correct, it gets changed back anyways (in my experience at least). So given that, I don't think it's worth it.

[Dropdead]

I've found that if you're not like an official wikipedia editor, even if you edit it and are correct, it gets changed back anyways (in my experience at least). So given that, I don't think it's worth it.

Yes, because if you edit an article written by someone they just come back and edit it back the way it was. This is why it's almost useless to edit wikipedia articles.

[NormalG]

Excellent! Most Americans get their info from Wikipedia and dont care to research.

[Luís Henrique]

One thing more:

organising to collectively edit articles is a no-no, and will get you blocked if caught (they once banned a whole lot of zionist editors, who conspired to keep Israel and zionism articles under their ideological grip). So it would be better to discuss it in some private forum, where the wikicracy won't spot it so easily.

Luís Henrique

[Skyhilist]

One thing more:

organising to collectively edit articles is a no-no, and will get you blocked if caught (they once banned a whole lot of zionist editors, who conspired to keep Israel and zionism articles under their ideological grip). So it would be better to discuss it in some private forum, where the wikicracy won't spot it so easily.

Luís Henrique

Also, they'd probably just change it back and then lock the page so even people who they didn't manage to block couldn't edit it.

[Lucretia]

If that's so, why do you bother wasting your time on this thread?

Consider it a public service announcement to prevent people from wasting their time.

[#FF0000]

Consider it a public service announcement to prevent people from wasting their time.

far be it from me to question your methods but I want to remind you that you are posting on revleft

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Consider it a public service announcement to prevent people from wasting their time.

So what, in your opinion, is not a waste of time and is something that people on this forum could take part in via the internet?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Also remember that if you are editing Wikipedia, you are working for free to the profit of Jimbo Wales and associates.


That is indeed the most gut-wrenching facet of it all.

Why the fuck hasn't that self-satisfied smug fuck been kicked yet? How is it that it is permissible that scum sits and siphons off Wiki funding for his fucking yachts?

Fuck Jimbo.

[Luís Henrique]

Here is an interesting place (http://wikipediareview.com/) to go, if you want to understand Wikipedia.

Remind however that some admins in WP do frequent the place, so keep a low profile if you actually want to edit Wickedpedia.

Luís Henrique

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Slander and distortion of Marxism was what the Bolsheviks did. Don't do the same to Wikipedia.

Do you people ever get tired of railing against Bolsheviks? Honestly, I could take a random SPGB article, strip the "Marxist" rhetoric, and convince myself I'm reading Conquest or Solzhenitsyn.


Wikipedia editing would be useful as it is a highly used website, let's not make the mistake of ignoring something that is used so frequently by people on the internet.

Isn't the unreliability of Wikipedia common knowledge by now, though? I don't think many people use it as their only or primary source.


There are more substantive things that one can do other than edit Wikipedia, but I actually think that the idea behind Wikipedia is a good one. It always has puzzled me when people on this site speak negatively of it (note: negatively of it in the sense that anyone can get their grubby mits on a keyboard and edit the articles)

It tends to be problematic when "anyone" is usually some internet Ayn Rand cultist, conspiracy theorist, crackpot, frothing reactionary and so on. Also when such people run the place. That tends to be problematic as well.

[Lucretia]

far be it from me to question your methods but I want to remind you that you are posting on revleft

And...? I'm not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that revleft has a similar policy of modifying and deleting content that wikipedia does? Because it's that set of policies that make wikipedia a waste of time. Anything that swims too hard against the tide of bourgeois prejudice will be either edited out, deleted, or relegated to footnote 17 of subsection 5 near the bottom of the article in order to maintain a "neutral" point of view. Plus, if I wanted, I could easily copyright my contributions to this forum. The same cannot be said about contributions to wikipedia. In other words, I am not giving my ideas away to some shady, undemocratic board.


So what, in your opinion, is not a waste of time and is something that people on this forum could take part in via the internet?

My presence here attests to the fact that I think revleft is not a waste of time.

[Os Cangaceiros]

It tends to be problematic when "anyone" is usually some internet Ayn Rand cultist, conspiracy theorist, crackpot, frothing reactionary and so on. Also when such people run the place. That tends to be problematic as well.

Really, are those the majority of the people who edit Wikipedia? Probably not. The reason that Wikipedia works reasonably well (they've done studies regarding Wikipedia's reliability that one can look at if one is so inclined) is because people who are genuinely obsessed with their topic (whether that topic is calculus or the history of the pencil sharpener or whatever) tend to outweigh the vandals.

When you go into the realm of social science and history, you have a lot more leverage to give your own interpretation of the data points, and thus you have frothing reactionaries who don't think that the October Revolution was the greatest thing to ever happen to mankind. That in and of itself doesn't invalidate the concept that I think makes Wikipedia work relatively well, which is letting the masses unleash their inner nerd interests for the benefit of anyone who's interested, including topics that may not be adequately covered or not covered at all in a conventional encyclopedia.

[Nicolas_Cage]

Wikipedia is the best source for information there is!

Sure, there are distortions here and there. The same thing could be said for ANY biographical/historical piece. Wikipedia gets it as unbiased as possible.


You *****es need to shut your mouths. Wanna edit Wikipedia? Do it. Just stop whining.



-NC

[Q]

I both agree and disagree that self-professed communists should deal with Wikipedia.

The problem is that Wikipedia, despite claiming to be, is most certainly not a neutral source. Because of its open editorship it is a reflection of society and this means that fringe and "extreme" topics will always see a distortion.

I don't think that communists should look at this question from a sectarian point of view: We don't need the PSL, CWI, SPGB or AnFed version of what communism is supposed to be. This would only result in more "editor wars" that Wikipedia is already rife of.

However, communists could make a useful rectification by contributing in a scientific manner. That is, in the first place, to reference your texts. All "facts" stated should be able to be researched and falsified. This way, Wikipedia is treated as a source of knowledge that can be used by all regardless of their interests.

[#FF0000]

I always thought the Communist articles on Wikipedia are, generally, pretty decent. Is that not the case anymore?

[Luís Henrique]

Really, are those the majority of the people who edit Wikipedia? Probably not.

I would say certainly not.

But the whole is more than the sum of the parts. And while most people editing Wikipedia are apolitical, the rules of Wikipedia favour certain political results over others.

One problem is that sheer stubbornness is rewarding. If one wants to stick to an article and make it look like one intends to, it is possible to do it, as long as no other similarly stubborn editor confronts it.

Another problem is the lack of any mechanism to systematically check sources. If I want, I can "source" any bizarre statement by referring it to a huge offline book, and there is no rule to force me to give a page for the reference, or to provide an exact quote that can be checked. If the "source" is not in English language, then practically anything is allowed, again provided that no other editor with the patience, will, time, and knowledge, questions it.

Heck, it is quite common that people simply invert the statement in the article without even changing the given source!


The reason that Wikipedia works reasonably well (they've done studies regarding Wikipedia's reliability that one can look at if one is so inclined) is because people who are genuinely obsessed with their topic (whether that topic is calculus or the history of the pencil sharpener or whatever) tend to outweigh the vandals.

The "vandals" as in people who will insert text such as "Nietzsche was a gay doguess", yes, they will be suppressed quickly. But people who hold absurd and fringe interpretations of Nietzsche can stick for a long time, even accusing other editors of dishonesty and - if they know the appropriate admins - getting them blocked.

Luís Henrique

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

I both agree and disagree that self-professed communists should deal with Wikipedia.

The problem is that Wikipedia, despite claiming to be, is most certainly not a neutral source. Because of its open editorship it is a reflection of society and this means that fringe and "extreme" topics will always see a distortion.

I don't think that communists should look at this question from a sectarian point of view: We don't need the PSL, CWI, SPGB or AnFed version of what communism is supposed to be. This would only result in more "editor wars" that Wikipedia is already rife of.

However, communists could make a useful rectification by contributing in a scientific manner. That is, in the first place, to reference your texts. All "facts" stated should be able to be researched and falsified. This way, Wikipedia is treated as a source of knowledge that can be used by all regardless of their interests.

I agree with what you have said Q, it seems as if you are synthesising all the main points on this thread while adding the 'incentive' of enhancing one's own knowledge about communism as well! Perhaps we could organise a wiki group on Revleft?

[The Idler]

There is a wiki on revleft, go to the top of the page on the right.

[Luís Henrique]

I agree with what you have said Q, it seems as if you are synthesising all the main points on this thread while adding the 'incentive' of enhancing one's own knowledge about communism as well! Perhaps we could organise a wiki group on Revleft?

If we do so, let's do it where Wikipedia admins can't see it and accuse us of being "meat puppets", lest we want to get blocked.

Luís Henrique

[Orange Juche]

Yes, because if you edit an article written by someone they just come back and edit it back the way it was. This is why it's almost useless to edit wikipedia articles.

Have a friend come to the article, no username, and edit the article to nothing, or just a word. Now you, after having done some legitimate edits on random articles here and there, have the article ready to copy/paste that you want to see - and put reason for editing "revert".

It'll look like you reverted someone's vandalism, rather than edited it at all.

[Belbanadleru]

that would as productive as a discussion in youtube comments, tbh.