All I'm saying is don't call it a wiki. It isn't one. And in your hypothetical scenario the edit would be reverted unless it contained verifiable information from a neutral point of view (or at least a "neutral leftist" POV). That's how Wikipedia works.
i do not trust the maturity of the revleft users tbh, and also as was discussed in the CC the idea was to have articles written by certain authors for certain fields so that learning could be honed as one would be able to view things in full knowledge and with full accountability of the author, your comment seemed a bit sneering; but imaging i make a entry on Trotsky and then somebody in the HU is free to edit it as they wish the whole project would degenerate into nothing. the project has died now anyhoo, Matle tells me he has a scheme in the pipeline along the same lines
Well I was just trying to contribute; it's not a wiki if there's no community participation. And it's not a wiki, anyway, since it's not freely editable. Encyclopedia would be more accurate.
can you see the user group without being a member? if you can please stop trying to join, those who have joined were only to make up the numbers so that i could open a forum regards holden
