Wikipedia Campaign

[heiss93]

I think we should coordinate our activities on wikipeida and try to get some of our members made into editors. Wikipedia is the first thing to come up on google on almost any subject, and is the first source of reference for many in the west. Considering the extent to which wikipedia is used, I think its a golden opportunity. Its the equivalent of us being able to have a say in CNN, Fox, the New York Times, or the radio. We really have a chance to influence in a big way, a major media outlet.

Theres a strong right wing bias, but if we present solid facts from "mainstream" or acceptable sources they have no choice but to accept it. We should use Revleft as a reference for facts and critique of bias sources. The Mao article for instance reads like a cliff notes version of Mao The Unknown Story. And many of the Communism articles are just cribbed off "the black book". If anyone has a problem on wikipedia you should post on revleft that you need help, and than allow other members to PM you about the specific problem.

For my part I'm kind of sick of having to debate every nutjob or crackpot with access to a computer, but its very important work and the closest we are going to get to the mainstream media.

Youtube is another good start. Even if you can't post your own videos, comment on other people's videos and get our voice out there. Actually its remarkably easy to make a youtube video with "Memoriesonweb", all you have to do is put a bunch of pictures and an mp3 or wav file together and you have a video. We should practically flood youtube with videos like that. Web2.0 is a remarkable opportunity and I feel like the Ron Paulists and Nazis have made much better use of it than we have.

[RedAnarchist]

I think its a good idea. We should be utilizing these very popular sites to our advantage.

[jacobin1949]

With all the white power videos on youtube its kind of ironic that they label any videos attacking "veteran status" as hate videos. We should tag any videos besmirching the veteran status of the Viet Cong.

[jacobin1949]

If we are unable to push our views on to wikipedia we could destroy the legitmacy of wikipedia. You can write about made up Ancient African kings, or medieval italian merchants. Basically any prank article that is well-written, serious and not far-fetched can make it on to wikipedia. So if we fail to change wikipedia we can burn it to the ground. If we post hundreds of fake articles on wikipedia and then just leave them for a few years they will spread across hundreds of wiki-copycat sites. Thus when you google some fake German prince, you will get hundreds of hits. Its not the same as "hijacking" wikipedia. But if we cant join em, beat em!

[Son of a Strummer]

I think this is a good idea. Do you guys knows about the "allegations of State Terrorism committed by the United States" page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_Un ited_States

It's kind of famous in the community as one of the most controversial (and most hated by conservatives and liberals) articles in the encyclopedia.

[Bright Banana Beard]

I think this is a good idea. Do you guys knows about the "allegations of State Terrorism committed by the United States" page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_Un ited_States

It's kind of famous in the community as one of the most controversial (and most hated by conservatives and liberals) articles in the encyclopedia.


Get this sticked already, we must reinforce about that article.

[KarlMarx]

Yes, this is an important challenge and I urge my fellow progressives to take up this worthy cause. We need many more good leftists editors to participate and jump into the important class struggles that are taking place within the wikipedia arena, every day.

We owe it to those who sacrificed much in the real world to get it right when it comes to representing knowledge. We have to fight for the truth to come out especially if its very effectivel in exposing crucial issues and crimes of empire and imperialism. Indeed, information is intellectual weaponry that we are in a position to arm those who seek it out, and thus further the revolutionary and progressive transformation that we champion. May our work reach far, open eyes and inspire direct action!

Otherwise, without our voice fighting for the inclusion of the perspective representing the interests of the worlds poor, exploited , and oppressed, we give ground to right wing forces who are very active on wikipedia and do much damage over time--if left unopposed. We need to be a counter weight. I'm not suggesting we violate any policies on WP by deliberately trying to skew articles in a POV (point of view) manner, but rather fight for the inclusion of a truthful representation of the real world, which includes the revolutionary left perspective on every important issue and question. Its only in this way that articles can approach a more balanced and thus neutral overall presentation of the many subtle but important political facets of various articles. The article on US terrorism is one that regularly needs defenders to protect and built this important topic. At times the balance of forces just barley is enough to keep the article from being wiped out.

To work successfully on wikipedia, its important that you learn the rules and play the game correctly, and behave in ways that are conducive to our goals. Just jump in read the talk page, be open to learning, and enjoy the good fight. Since the truth is on our side, and history, we actually can win through an appeal to wikipedias existing rules and policies. There are many progressive minded academics from which to draw a wealth of information from. The reactionaries hate this and try their best to suppress and slant articles to tell lies. We are here to tell the truth!

I hope to see more fine editors from this forum join me and others in Wikipedia.

In Struggle,
Marx.

[jacobin1949]

I don;t get while so many people on Revleft who have no bones about overthrowing the government are so concerned about no violating any of wikipedia's NPOV polices. Anyway its inherently skewed. Nutjobs on the right are always going to receive more $$$ and thus more respectability than nutjobs on the left. The left-wing equivalent of "Mao the Unknown story" and "the black book of Communism" is MIM! And yet those are considered reputable sources. The CIA/FBI is always a reputable source but the KGB is propaganda. Robert Conquest a known propagandist, government agent, and informer is taken at gospel. Wacky professor's personal websites are used as stats on genocides. Every single Pokemon and South Park episode or joke deserve their own article but countless leftists who changed history don't. The rag official newspaper of the satanic cult the Falun Gong that claims that the CPC is an actual religious cult, is used as a reputable source. So I don't know why pushing a point of view on wikipedia is such a moral dilemma.

[KarlMarx]

What you say is true. These are part of the problems that can be solved with more editors who challenged these systematic biases and double standards. The rules do not stipulate these practices, they are the result of editors thinking. So if we have more editors with our kind of thinking, it changes the consensus on these many issues, and they can't get away with it.

About NPOV, in reality, there is always inherently a POV. Neutrality is a utopian concept, a facade just like "objectivity" is in journalism. I think we all know that. However, I advocate sticking to the practice and spirit of all of wikipedia's ostensive policies as a practical manner. Do not rebel against these policies by breaking them outright or else you will find ourself quickly banned. Right wingers love it when they can get an inexperienced editor to break the rules, often baited them and setting them up. You have to learn to play the game. This is a question of tactics and being wise. After all, we want to win, we want to be effective. So, do embrace the NPOV policies openly, and fight for their implementation, according to your understanding of what would make the article fair and balanced, a reflection of the reality it purports to report on. This is part of the battle for getting it right I was talking about. The battle of what sources are best, is also another part of the battle. It takes a struggle to win, but the policies actually favor us, since we do stand on the side of wanting to tell the truth, not hide it (like the conservatives often want).

[benpuk]

Theres a strong right wing bias,
You may be [amused/horrified] (delete as appropriate) to see the following:
www . conservapedia . com / Main_Page

Check out the page on Wikipedia in particular.

Mercifully they're extremely unpopular, but the very existence of the site is troubling.

(Link broken as I don't have enough posts to add links yet.)

[Qwerty Dvorak]

If we are unable to push our views on to wikipedia we could destroy the legitmacy of wikipedia. You can write about made up Ancient African kings, or medieval italian merchants. Basically any prank article that is well-written, serious and not far-fetched can make it on to wikipedia. So if we fail to change wikipedia we can burn it to the ground. If we post hundreds of fake articles on wikipedia and then just leave them for a few years they will spread across hundreds of wiki-copycat sites. Thus when you google some fake German prince, you will get hundreds of hits. Its not the same as "hijacking" wikipedia. But if we cant join em, beat em!
No. This is exactly the kind of trollish derailing of potentially valuable information repositories* that would bring the left into extreme disrepute.

* can't think of a better way to describe it...

[apathy maybe]

RevLeft?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Revolutionary_Left&action=history
Just revert any edits made by Workinghere.

[benpuk]

RevLeft?
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Revolutionary_Left&action=history
Just revert any edits made by Workinghere.


Do not spam links to non-notable websites. Even the link in the talk page says that it is only the 1445th largest message board. That is not notable.

Totally reasonable. It's their site, gotta play by their rules. As someone above said, being obstructive about this sort of thing will only give the left a bad name.