Wikipedia?!?

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

I just came up with this idea - in a aim for a popular education campaign, perhaps we can begin a campaign at wikipedia? It is a frequent student and generally used resource, and free for all to edit (mostly) as long as its not blatently biased, etc.

I have noticed on there most subjects relating to specific communists/revolutionaries or some other subjects about them are left empty or mostly biased accounts (while not many). I believe we should aim to rewrite/add to some of those articles in hopes of educating those who visit such pages.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_and_Revolution = What I just wrote about Lenin's State and Revolution (From after the 1st Paragraph after the "Poverty of Philosophy" part onward). It took about 5 minutes, which is why its pretty messy/bland as well.

[Everyday Anarchy]

If you are suggesting we set out to make all the leftist Wiki entries sound good and all right wing Wiki entries sound evil then that's a horrible idea.
When adding/editting Wikipedia, you need to leave your politics at the door. Keeping Wiki apolitical can be a challenge but it has to be done for legitimacy-sake.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

What I meant was that many of the leftist articles on wikipedia are "Stubs" - that we go in and expand/provide more info on them, as I too know that bias cannot be allowed on wiki

[dannie]

no offence, but your article is already a tad biased against anarchism. But participating on wikipedia is a good idea anyways.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 08:19 AM
no offence, but your article is already a tad biased against anarchism.
This is Lenin we&#39;re talking about <_<

I actually like this idea though and might adopt this article. I&#39;ve rewritten the intro paragraph slightly. What the article does need though is structure. Something along the lines of the following set of headings:

Background
Major Themes
=Class Society and the State
=The Necessity of Revolution
=Development of Marxism (Rebuttal of Kautsky et al)
Impact/Legacy

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 08:19 AM
no offence, but your article is already a tad biased against anarchism. But participating on wikipedia is a good idea anyways.
Well, because S+R is mainly a book trying to narrow down Revolutionaries into his path of thought , Marxism-Leninism, and away from Anarchism/Social-Democracy/Other-Forms. That is why everywhere I say "Lenin says" (To make it unbiased), and I use many of his words as well.

Course, I agree too with whats he saying, so sadly I might be a bit biased :(

[dannie]

i edited a small piece of it, it said:

Lenin claims then that the only "remedy" for these ills is Socialist Revolution, and that is where he breaks off with the anarchists. Being a materialist, he disagrees on two points with the Anarchists:

I edited this to:


Lenin claims then that the only "remedy" for these ills is Socialist Revolution, and that is where he breaks off with the anarchists. He disagrees on two points with the Anarchists:

because the first quote would imply anarchists not being materialists, while the greater part of anarchists are.
No offence taken or anything, it&#39;s not like it&#39;s possible to be objective, we are all humans after all

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

I see, thanks for correcting that mistake/bias.

[Forward Union]

I just realised, loads of left wing pages on wikipedia don&#39;t link to RL, in fact; none do. So I plugged it in the following,
Communism
Anarchist communism
Libertarian socialism
Libertarian Marxism
Anarcho-Feminism
Marxism
Syndicalism
Mutualism

[TC]

I think its really inappropriate to &#39;plug&#39; anything in wikipedia thats not what its meant for.


Anyways i think wikipedia is horribly biased against revolutionary marxist-leninist politics.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

I personally find the parts about "Communist State" and other more complex aspects of communism well-made, as apparently the anti-communists didn&#39;t know what the heck things like materialism or alienation or marxism were, so they left them be while revolutionaries went in and edited them =)

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 09:15 PM
Anyways i think wikipedia is horribly biased against revolutionary marxist-leninist politics.
that, or Marxist-Leninist&#39;s are horrible biased of their own ideology. Hmmm....

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 09:15 PM
I think its really inappropriate to &#39;plug&#39; anything in wikipedia thats not what its meant for.


You think everything I do is innapropriate :rolleyes: .

Nothing wrong with adding RL to the list of relevant external links is there?

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

nopp :D

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 03:05 AM
perhaps we can begin a campaign at wikipedia?
One flaw - there is no &#39;we&#39; here.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by Love [email protected] 11 2006, 07:07 AM
I just realised, loads of left wing pages on wikipedia don&#39;t link to RL, in fact; none do. So I plugged it in the following,
Communism
Anarchist communism
Libertarian socialism
Libertarian Marxism
Anarcho-Feminism
Marxism
Syndicalism
Mutualism

edit: argh.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Originally posted by gilhyle+Sep 11 2006, 11:26 PM--> (gilhyle &#064; Sep 11 2006, 11:26 PM)
[email protected] 10 2006, 03:05 AM
perhaps we can begin a campaign at wikipedia?
One flaw - there is no &#39;we&#39; here. [/b]

That is called a "Stupid Comment"

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by RevolutionaryMarxist+Sep 13 2006, 12:29 AM--> (RevolutionaryMarxist @ Sep 13 2006, 12:29 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 11:26 PM

[email protected] 10 2006, 03:05 AM
perhaps we can begin a campaign at wikipedia?
One flaw - there is no &#39;we&#39; here.

That is called a "Stupid Comment" [/b]
You think its stupid to point out that it would not be possible to orchestrate such an intervention on wikipedia because &#39;we&#39; dont have a shared view about what should be on wikipedia......I find it hard not to think its stupid to consider such a comment stupid.

[Janus]

There is Red Wiki from Red Apollo which is more oriented towards leftists.

[Lenin's Law]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 03:19 AM

When adding/editting Wikipedia, you need to leave your politics at the door. Keeping Wiki apolitical can be a challenge but it has to be done for legitimacy-sake.


Yes, bourgeois mainstream conformist&#33;

What else? "All philosophies have their good sides and bad sides, therefore it is inappropriate to say one is better than the other, we simply do not know for really, really sure&#33;" :lol:

In reality of course "Wikipedia" is terribly biased and by default, extremely political. To believe that anyone can seriously write about the entire history of the world without being biased or having a point of view is incredibly naive and a typical bourgeious falsification of history.

Look, Wikipedia is edited by HUMANS. Not infallible deities. What&#39;s more, it&#39;s mostly edited by YOUNG humans, which tend to be recorders for things they&#39;ve heard either on TV or from their parents. Of course there are exceptions, for example, this forum but generally I think this is true. And think about it - which young people generally have access to a PC, internet at home and have enough time to spend hours sitting by a computer and typing up entires? Yup, you guessed it - not working class people.

Therefore, what kind of point of view do you believe will be generally represented on such a website? If you have any shread of leftist in you , you will know the answer.

The belief that we can talk about the entire history of the world, the important events and people around world history and somehow remain "apolitical" is a (rather obvious) bourgeois lie.

Do you believe your high school history book is apolitical?

It&#39;s not just a matter of how you present information but what information is presented, what is left out, etc. Determining which information gets puts it and which one doesn&#39;t make the cut (as it is impossible to include everything about an individual or world event) is an entirely political act.

Understanding that absolutely nothing that has to do with politics or history can possibly be "apolitical" is a key to any leftist&#39;s intellectual development. Most often, "apolitical" is a tool used by the petit-bourgeoius or "soft" conservatives to provide some (false) "middle ground" between the left and the right. It is just a reactionary in disguise with a friendly face; the &#39;good&#39; CEO if you will.

[Ander]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 07:52 PM
There is Red Wiki from Red Apollo which is more oriented towards leftists.
Where can I see this?

[Janus]

Where can I see this?
Red Apollo Wiki (http://www.redapollo.org/wiki/)

[Orange Juche]

Uncyclopedia is far better&#33;

http://www.uncyclopedia.org

[kaaos_af]

...and so resume the Wiki Wars