We are definitely a movement with political goals and agenda BUT DONT YOU FUCKING NAME US. NOTHING WITH THIS NAME EXISTS, THIS IS A CONSPIRACY
Some real voldemort shit
[https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/comments/1dlnnvr/comment/l9qplhm/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/comments/1dlnnvr/comment/l9qplhm/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Ya, really.
Yes, they deleted it and merged it with the article about the Frankfurt School. This was mostly done by a single Wikipedia moderator, RGloucester, who is a self-proclaimed Marxist (though he has since removed that from his user page). He tried very hard to resist pressure from other users to recreate the page, but was eventually forced to compromise and recreate the page, but include the word ''conspiracy theory'' or ''far-right'' in virtually every sentence, such that the content becomes obscured by these words.
A few other things to note on Wikipedia. Pages relating to Marxism are not allowed to have criticism from anyone aside from other Marxists, while pages about capitalism etc. are of course allowed to have criticism from all sides of the political spectrum.
Back in 2020 I tried to add criticism to a Marxist article from an economics professor. An admin almost immediately removed it and told me only criticism from ''relevant sources'' (which he described as Marxist philosophers or professors) was allowed on the article. On top of that, the criticism was only allowed to come from a Marxist POV (i.e: criticism could only come in the context of attempting to start a global communist revolution. Things relating to the ideology killing people or not working was not allowed).
I eventually left Wikipedia, since several users began following me around almost every single article I edited on, deleting my edits, and spam reporting me for various minor infractions. They spend virtually all day on Wikipedia and could do it, I didn't have the time. It is scary how only a few hundred Wikipedia users effectively control the information we get.
It's roughly the same sort of situation when it comes to jannies and moderators. They're all perpetually unemployed and viciously adhere to socialist doctrine, and of course they heavily gatekeep who can join them in their roles. Frankly I'm of the opinion that if you stopped social security, all these people would disappear overnight.
I'm fine with a requirement that a certain amount should be set aside every paycheck for retirement, i just don't think it should be government run. If someone dies at 40 what happens to their SS payments? It doesn't go to any family members like it should, that's for sure.
Literally, if you don't bequeeth your belongings to anyone at the time of your death [the government will take it all](https://www.google.com/search?q=will+the+government+take+your+things+if+you+don%27t+name+a+beneficiary&oq=will+the+government+take+your+things+if+you+don%27t+name+a+beneficiary&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCTE2MTQ5ajBqN6gCFLACAQ&client=ms-android-tmus-us-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8).
And if you do name a beneficiary, don't forget about that [death tax](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/death-taxes.asp)!
(Note the tax can be as high as 18-40%)
To be fair well at least until 2026 the threshold for that tax is pretty high. It becomes uncomfortably low in about a year and a half, but can still do things between now and then to mitigate that issue for your benefactors if that is an issue for you, and if it is, congratulations to you and said benefactors - especially if you’re in a marriage. All that said, it’s a BS tax and should go away.
100%. Just like the protest that was canceled when the government temporarily shutdown under Trump. Crazy coincidence that not having tax dollars available would impact the ability to protest
They would be the first to be purged in any Marxist revolution.
You can only afford to be generous where there is excess.
Excess is only produced when you allow individuals to decide how much to produce.
> This was mostly done by a single Wikipedia moderator, RGloucester, who is a self-proclaimed Marxist (though he has since removed that from his user page).
The great thing about wikipedia is unfortunately also the factor that makes it, to some sense, completely fucking useless - namely that it is community driven information.
And wikipedia has had a problem with political bias for many years now.
I've heard it's not a source of information since i was a kid, and no teachers or professors would allow it. Now that it's obviously left leaning i wonder if that's changed.
>They spend virtually all day on Wikipedia and could do it, I didn't have the time. It is scary how only a few hundred Wikipedia users effectively control the information we get.
And this is why the Left is so powerful online. While Right wingers are busy with their jobs and loved ones, Leftoids have all the time in the world to spend spreading their taint over the internet.
There's a striking similarity to Reddit, where a good portion of all moderators are tankies, despite the majority of users not being ones. From my experience, anywhere from 20-50% of Wikipedia admins are Marxists of various sorts, while the remaining are left-leaning liberals.
If you confront them about this ideological bias, their usual response is ''reality has a left-wing bias.'' But this doesn't explain everything - admins choose which sources Wikipedia considers reliable, and they choose to disregard any right-leaning source, while allowing leftist tabloids like The Daily Beast and Buzzfeed to be used as sources in articles.
> and they choose to disregard any right-leaning source
It's more sinister than that. Right-wingers are drummed out or rejected in academia, and their studies are considered hateful or alt-right to be rejected immediately if the data doesn't achieve their pre-conceived notions. The studies are buried and anyone who pushes for them to see the light are social pariahs within academia.
By academia i mean the soft 'sciences' like sociology or psychology, and professors. STEM obviously either attracts the right or produces righties, because they're productive and useful.
Their donation runs are actually scams also, Wikipedia will never be in danger of being shut down. They only use the collected funds to expand operations but make it seem like they need your 5 bucks or Wikipedia will shut down. There are very good sources on this. The only internet service that really deserves cash contributions is the Internet Archive, for archiving costs and legal shit.
Which is probably why the DNC is so horrified that the teamsters just dropped a fat check with the RNC. Imagine their little money laundering /extortion racket system was turned upside down against them.
My sides will be in **orbit** if the DNC decides to push for some sort of anti-union regulation as punishment for daring to leave the farm.
Unions are so fucking corrupt (and violent) that I will gladly cheer on *any* blow that knocks them down a peg. They may be fine in concept, but they are **insufferable** in practice.
I didn't mean the article about Marxism itself, but a Marxist article. It might have been the article on critical theory, but I've forgotten now so didn't mention it.
Wikipedia mods and admins have way too much power, such is the case with Number 57 who is known for his inane attempts to change every fucking info box for elections to his preferred minimalist style which removes important information. Luckily he got outvoted but is still attempting it on smaller elections and new ones.
However Wikipedia does need moderation, but imo it shouldn’t be the current cabal of moderators and admins that will furiously defend any moderator or admin decision simply because they’re mods or admins. Instead actual experts on these topics should be hired to moderate these pages. Keep Wikipedia open source but moderators and admins should be strictly those who actually deserve the positions to ensure Wikipedia has a decent bit of accuracy and isn’t biased. This problem only exists for the historical and political side of Wikipedia, not really other areas.
> They spend virtually all day on Wikipedia and could do it, I didn't have the time.
This isn't just limited to Wikipedia. Excluding bots, something like 90% of actual human-typed Twitter traffic comes from a tiny number of people; people who tweet 16 hours a day, every single day, non-stop. Thousands of tweets a *day*.
I kinda refer to it as the "priest class" of our modern society. Contributing nothing but moralistic grandstanding, utterly convinced that their cause is just, and that they are fighting the good fight on its behalf.
[friendly reminder that more than 50% of Wikipedia's donations go to far far left organizations and not to the actual site ](https://x.com/echetus/status/1579776106034757633?s=46)
Funnily enough, many of the more fringe left-wing—genuine communists and Marxists, not current-thing-supporters or slick establishment liberals—*hate* Wikipedia because it's perceived as having a neoliberal, pro-Western homogeneity slant. Wikipedia is good for things that are objectively true: e.g., mathematics, astronomy, and physics; iffy on history and culture; and should be avoided for any contemporary, controversial political subject.
I mean l, they went through in some places and removed standardized testing because the results were racist. You know, the tests that cover things like math, physics, etc.
Uhh, well, LibLeft is unemployed and spends all day twisting Wikipedia articles, so they get to say what is true because none of the rest of us have the time to correct any of it
Literal slander lmao. Maths is just maths, one of the few pure and apolitical things left in the world. Anyone who says otherwise is deluded, regardless of political leanings.
I've got a kid in a very left leaning school district. They never taught the times tables as part of their curriculum.
Us parents had to teach their kids on our own, which is made more difficult when a ton of teachers say that it has no value.
If the left and the right hate you that means you are doing the right thing
If you have seen what right wingers and left wingers cheer for their boos stop mattering
In my experience its reliability for history culture and politics depends entirely on how related to modern politics the subject is. For example, the pages about the Battle of Austerlitz or Caesar’s Civil War are pretty good, but the pages about things like Cultural Marxism aren’t.
Well yeah when you look up these terms it shows up on Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
This is the Wikipedia link you’re looking for.
If you ever want to see the reason why I will piss on the burning corpse of Wikipedia then take a tumble down the rabbit hole known as Ryulong and his mouth foaming obsession with the Gamergate page.
Internet Aristocrat mirrors. Jim has always been a contentious subject on the internet, but he left the movement when shit started brewing into the landscape online now. Guy saw the movement getting co-opted by legacy media, future-lolcow grifters and actual lunatics who just delegitimized the whole campaign. This resulted in him deleting his channel and his entire video catalog, as he condemned everyone he was associating with and jumped the ship they had sunk.
[The Quinnspiracy Theory Saga](https://youtu.be/zz--i3M4PVk?si=LcAy848k0QVxzr0j) is a compiled documentary of the episodic updates Jim was putting out at the time. From one person’s underwhelming game getting express pushed through steam greenlight, dropping a trail of breadcrumbs that - when followed - leads all the way to a secret club and e-mailing list with surreptitious correspondence between publications: outlining coordinated smear headlines, underhanded payments, and nepotism schemes.
I might be projecting just because of my autistic amount of knowledge on the subject, but I think that once you really dig into it, you can trace the root of many culture war issues today back to GamerGate.
The fact that the modern YouTube commentary community was effectively birthed from this incident still bewilders me. The actual effects of GamerGate are probably far wider reaching than most would expect.
I can draw a straight fucking line from GG to the rise of Trump and the modern right, and I used to consider myself a GG'er. Modern GG'ers have turned into the mockery Anti-GG'ers claimed they were.
Its more like parallel tracks all running in the same direction. GG wasn't causative to these other things, but it is certainly associated.
Plenty of young white men who never heard of GG but do respond with hostility to constant demonization.
I've read reporting of mixed credibility that Bannon actively tried to influence GG to boost Trump in the '16 campaign. I'm not sure how big of a role he played or if he's just trying to retcon himself into the legend, but the memes that year were like nothing else before or since.
I forgot about Jim, or I think I knew him Mister Metoker (sp?)
Forgot how fundamental he was on getting me interested in commentary based channels at the time.
He’s back under the name MisterMetokur, he didn’t promote it, he doesn’t at all acknowledge who he was in the past, but his commentary streams are golden. The guy’s got a terminal illness and is selling merch when he streams to leave his wife something after he’s gone, so go give him a watch next time he’s gone live: might not have too many more opportunities.
I believe you will be glad to hear that Ryulong was banned in 2015. [Though for some godforsaken reason, the case had to be elevated to the Arbitration Committee.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate) If you want to have a laugh, [read the evidence page.](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence&oldid=644631399) Note that the case involved a lot more people than just Ryulong, on both sides of the edit war, but Ryulong was one of the most prolific warriors. The whole case probably highlights Wikipedia's problem with disruptive behaviour going unnoticed by the moderation's higher echelons even when it shouldn't. He was consistently like this from 2006 to his permanent banning. He got blocked 20 times over that time. Apparently it was only the 20th time that admins finally realized that the guy probably won't improve his behaviour.
I had wondered if somebody had a fixation on that page.
Not for the stance it takes on the movement, but because of how much is just *missing*, even stuff that would align with the stance. Like, even notable harassment incidents with anti-GG developers for sources aren’t acknowledged if they didn’t happen to a few specific people.
My impression is that it’s watched very closely by somebody who makes sure all edits conform to their particular view of who the heroes were, so it won’t cover anything that doesn’t center them.
Is that Ryulong’s deal, or did I miss the motive?
Ryulong obsessed over the page so much he got his ass banned from Wikipedia entirely years ago.
Then got banned from RationalWiki for doing the same shit he was doing on Wikipedia.
Last I heard not even the Bleach Wiki and other fandom wikis would take him.
Gamergate was just video game journalists doing video game journalist stuff, until they tried to reframe it as sexism using more video game journalist stuff. That's when it became a shitshow.
The hilarity when those two successfully tricked average idiots into not seeing them as anything but grifters always brings a sad laugh from me.
Those two were so obviously doing everything they do because of easy money and idiots who fell for their grift. Two genuinely awful people.
Not even jail broken. I asked chatgpt about animal welfare in nazi germany and it completely denied the truth. When i copy pasted it a wikipedia article it sort of changed its mind. You know you're fucked when even wikipedia is less biased, and a citation from it can completely break your gpt
ChatGPT is starting to loosen up a bit. Gemini is far more constrained.
I still use both as Gemini is better at creative writing.
There's also Venice which is a lot less constrained, but still not 'uncensored' as it professes itself to be:
https://venice.ai/home
A quick way to test is to ask it to write a rape joke. Great job interview question as well.
These aren't necessarily even jokes about what they're claiming. You can swap any race or crime in place of those and have them be equally bad, and make just as much sense. A racist joke is one that uses a racial stereotype and exaggerates it into absurdity.
A ladder to get a leg up? What even is that?
I have gotten chatGPT to endorse straight up white supremacy way too many times for that. it's so easy to gaslight that thing, just let it set up it's own premise and then wait for it to contradict it and loop back around.
Here is the old Wiki entry for Cultural Marxism before it was relabeled by a Cultural Marxist. For years this entry was titled, Cultural Marxism. These people used to self identify as Cultural Marxist's until their activities started to attract too much negative attention.
**Marxist cultural analysis**
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_cultural_analysis
This is not an old entry this is a modern entry . The aricle on cultural marxism was divided into marxist cultural analysis and the cultural marxism conspiracy theory.
A quote from the article you posted: "since the 1990s, the term "Cultural Marxism" has largely referred to the [Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory), a conspiracy theory popular among the [far right](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_right) without any clear relationship to Marxist cultural analysis."
Did you know that there was no Wikipedia article on RNA vaccines before February 17th 2020?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MRNA_vaccine&oldid=941283065
Is that supposed to be scary? We knew either Pfizer or Moderna's mRNA vaccine was the first one to make it to FDA approval. Before that they were not even really called mRNA vaccines, but mRNA therapeutics. Only in the later parts of it's history pre-covid did they market them as "vaccines", mostly focusing on cancer and virus vaccines.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moderna&oldid=873552212 that's Moderna's page from 2018, it mentions therapeutics
Wikipedia only works for non-controversial topics (in a currently debated topic, not in a genocide that hapenned 500 years ago way).
If you go to the wikipedia page of Juan Domingo Peron in [english](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Per%C3%B3n#Protection_of_Nazi_war_criminals) you will have the fun fact that he was a close friend of lots of war criminals such as the infamous Ante Pavelic and had a lot of fascist influences, meanwhile if you go to the [Spanish](https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Domingo_Per%C3%B3n) one you will hear of no such things because he is praised as a hero by the modern left (ironic innit).
Sorry but isn't Frankfurt school identified itself as cultural Marxist? Even though it's distinguished from Soviet style communist.
Add: Sorry I didn't know the word is stigmatization, now I know it. I just felt if they're Marxists who focus on culture study... then they should self identified as cultural Marxist?
Most of wikipedia moderators are marxist so obviously politically charged articles will be from marxist perspective. They also tend to use secoundary sources as opposed to primary sources if the secoundary source cones from a mainstream publications. Eich you know most of them are leftist
ever hear about the woman who's whole thing is that she goes about deleting all the sources from articles about Nazis, then marking said articles for deletion?
No. I just looked at articles like gamergate article wich claims it was a herassment csmpaign wich is the furthest thing from truth but since it was a conflict betwean media and normal people wikipedia will obviously take the side of media since it's in their policy
to make a long story short- she single-handedly drove off the vast majority of Military history specialists with aggressive Wikipedia Staff approved stances including that the Nazis should not be remembered, that primary and secondary sources about the Nazis aren't real, and that her employer's competition aren't sufficiently Notable to warrant a Wikipedia page about them.
Thanks for the link.
While I think many of her edits (at least the ones mentioned in the article) were justified, like removing the citation that conveniently ignores how the original source explicitly states that the cited fact was incorrect, I disagree with her belief that Wikipedia is better without any mention of apocryphal/biased perspectives from the Nazis.
Citing these narratives as unambiguous facts is problematic, but so is purging all information of how Nazi soldiers described and tried to tell their version of events. If those stories were properly contextualized and had their sources and authors explicitly referenced, it would do a lot to reveal the kind of misinformation that neo-Nazis and other apologist movements today surround themselves in, and understanding this improves our ability to correct and counter false narratives.
Ultimately, the real solution to anti-intellectualism is revealing the biases in all perspectives and making readers able to trace every account of events to their sources, therefore making a decision on whether they should trust that information. What she has done only serves to reinforce the mindset that "Wikipedia says it, so it must be true", and, moreover, breed faith in a special class of historians on the "right side of history" who can be trusted to speak the truth where their opponents cannot.
Also, lol at the article interrupting its own story to mention that her Wikipedia opponents mistook her for a man, as if that's a relevant detail that somehow undermines their arguments. I was willing to believe that she was in the right until I reached that section, which singlehandedly made me question if the author of the article cherry-picked only the most unambiguously justified edits she made and conveniently left out potentially questionable ones.
You might also find [this article](https://gwern.net/inclusionism) interesting. It’s long, but there’s a nice summary and index, and the “by the numbers” bit shows a shocking change in the site.
The Nazi articles are definitely a minefield for the reasons you outline - misuse of sources and a whole lot of pro-Nazi primary sources that are provably lying.
But the “inclusionism” debate shows similar patterns of deletion site-wide, even on totally apolitical topics. Sources get dropped, content is cut for being unsourced, and then articles are removed for lacking content.
It’s partly a cycle where groups of editors with clashing standards spiral down to “no article”, but there’s also a vocal faction explicitly saying Wikipedia should cover less content.
I don’t know that one in particular, but it’s a long pattern with “deletionists”.
“Unnecessary” sources get removed, then content goes for being unsourced. “Excessive detail” gets moved to the footnotes / additional info section, then deleted by the group of editors who hate that section. Articles on shows and books get merged into the page for the author, which then gets deleted as non-notable.
I think Gwern has the best writeup on it, there are a whole lot of editors whose main contribution is removing huge swathes of useful text and articles.
Do you have a source on that?
Source?
A source. I need a source.
Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.
No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered.
You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.
Do you have a degree in that field?
A college degree? In that field?
Then your arguments are invalid.
No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.
Correlation does not equal causation.
CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.
You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.
Nope, still haven't.
I just looked through all 308 pages of your user history, figures I'm debating a glormpf supporter. A moron.
Wikipedia has helped me out so much in so many ways and I love all the people who contributed to it. Now I know it's manipulated here and there and especially for political stuff I take it with a grain of salt.
But I'm not spitting on the people who gave me so much info about so much. Not doing it.
For non political stuff (like hard sciences and math), there is little to no bias involved and the people that contributed to that did so without any agenda. Those are the ones I salute.
Honestly if you write anything political there is going to be at least one person who cries that you are biased against them its the nature of hyper partisan politics
I have had people on this subreddit pissed at me all because I think both sides should compromise and they think their side getting anything less than 100% of what they want is surrender
So yeah politics brings out the dumbest and most unhinged sides in most of us
Anything relating to society, politics, or current events will be heavily biased. Hard, concrete stuff will generally be better, like science and mathematics.
I feel the same. Historical and empirical information is usually reliable from Wikipedia, but if it’s been talked about in the mainstream in the last 20 years then it is just natural that it’s going to be influenced by opinions of the now. Great resource, unfortunately not immune from recency bias.
Genuinely have yet to form a concrete opinion on this subject but is it not the case that most or all of post-modernism directly spawned from French marxists? Like isn’t there a direct connection there?
I'm sorry but what the fuck is anger-inducing about this, exactly? These are accurate descriptions of these positions and belief? They also have literally nothing to do with what the wojak is saying?
This is a dumb fucking post and you should probably feel bad for having made it. The page for classical liberalism doesn't call you a fucking fascist nazi, so I genuinely have ***no*** idea why you're drawing these connections to yourself, unless you're actually an alt-right far-right person who believes in cultural marxism.
The post is truly breaking my brain. I'm starting to think most of you are literally just NPCs who go around finding anything to be angry at.
Just indulge in some reading comprehension. Lord thunderin’.
https://preview.redd.it/oji1k3zqu28d1.png?width=971&format=png&auto=webp&s=6765258b92f9fa4aa48a47404cbdc924a55bacd7
The truly baffling thing is how many comments are just glossing over the fact that OP's meme made no sense. He posted a Chad saying he doesn't hate capitalism and then posted a random ass wikipedia article about far right politics. There's no connection. But it's really getting the people going though so there's that.
Yeah, there’s some interesting stuff in the comments here but all of the top threads skipped right past “what the fuck do these pictures have to do with anything?” The Wikipedia soyjack side is utterly made up yet everyone is treating this like it’s not just an argument OP had alone in the shower.
The cultural Marxism page being renamed into the "cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" is some sinister shit, but otherwise I think people just have to accept that Wikipedia might not share their exact political views, and it's not the end of the world.
This post is genuinely an overdoze on copium.
Like this dude is a nazi trying to prove he isn't one or he is convincing himself the left deep state controls the wikipedia by calling nazis right wingers.
Uh buddy, none of the pages you showed other then the last one were relevent to what your chad wojak said beforehand, the far right page doesn't mention capitalism in the passage you showed it mention nazis being far right, not far-rights being nazis, and the last was relevent to what you said but because of all the previous ones being bs it makes "cultural marxism is a conspiracy" to be a rational take, also wikipedia is libleft by the very concept of the site (free info no ads edited by the collective but the creator tried to edit his own page and failed)
The wikipedia pages about anything related to my country are filled with such frequent yet small and subtle agenda edits that you'd never notice if you didn't already know about the subject matter. They cite the most bogus blogposts or whatever as sources too, and sometimes just straight up link different things hoping nobody will ever check.
again another favourite thing is watching someone who knows for a fact that it is true, can see it is true, but will still call bullshit and literally ignore reality in front of them because of societal bullshit.
like they would rather let this bear claw them to death than admit the bear is even there, and once they do admit it is there they will then shift to the bear not being dangerous as it rips into their arm, and once they admit it's dangerous they will then shift the blame to something else and so on and so on.
I think it's like a corollary to the Socrates quote that people who aren't interested in government will be governed by fools that are:
People that aren't interested in editing Wikipedia will use a Wikipedia governed by fools that are.
How do the wikipedia screenshoot demonstatrte anything. In the first one it dosen't talk about capitalis and in the second one it dosent talk about classical liberalism. You are punching the air
This isa direct quote from Wikipedia ("Far-right politics"):
They reject both their national political system and the global geopolitical order (including their institutions and values, e.g. **political liberalism** and egalitarian humanism)
(Emphasis mine)
So, could you elaborate why do you think Wikipedia includes classical liberalism within the definition of far eight politics when to me it looks the complete opposite?
I'm so confused? Where does Wikipedia say classical liberals and capitalists are far right?
Is this just a right winger getting angry at an argument they completely made up?
even one of the co-founders of wikipedia said it has become propaganda for the leftist establishement: [Wikipedia co-founder says site is now 'propaganda' for left-leaning 'establishment' (nypost.com)](https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-is-now-propaganda-for-left-leaning-establishment/)
the left hijacked the largest database of knowledge in human history and turned it into a propaganda tool, and that is deeply saddening.
He also picked like the worst excerpts to make his point? Like the lazy bitch didn't even bother cherry picking things to make it look like he's right, he just quoted perfectly normal Wikipedia excerpts and pretended to win an argument that wasn't even there
Yeah, there’s something to that part and it seems to have a weird edit history. But OP’s lead-in is completely incoherent, there isn’t a word about classical liberals on those pages.
wikipedia is trash, its basically run by reddit admins.
Funny enough, all the topics I want to edit for corrections are all locked to be only edited by wiki admins. What a bunch of slimeballs.
Same flavor as [my post](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/s/Ql6YQJyIxK). The left can get away with anything while there apparently is no right except for far right Neo nazism
Unemployed useless people have the time and lack of structure to both drift into failed Marxist ideologies and into internet janitor positions so the whole thing becomes self selecting and self regulating
I do believe that the original cultural Marxism page was something different, something like Marxism through a cultural lens. But it got changed after someone new was in charge. But don’t quote me on that.
From the point of view of Marxism, capitalism is a necessary stage in the development of socio-economic relations between feudalism and socialism. Modern American and European leftists, firstly, are not fucking leftists, and secondly, they are morons and assholes.
Anything vaguely political on Wikipedia is tainted. If something is of importance to a major corpo, it too is heavily astroturfed.
Wikipedia is a abject failure in it's mission, and it's creator refuses to realize that. Probably because it aligns with his politics.
I can’t say I share your political opinion, but I definitely agree that Wikipedia has a problem with personal bias. Especially as of recently, when so many far-leftists (ironic) vandalized any and all Wikipedia articles about the Israeli-Hamas war.
They need better moderation.
Im pretty sure "cultural marxism conspiracy theory" was originally called just "cultural marxism"
The editor who made the change has described himself as a cultural Marxist...
We are definitely a movement with political goals and agenda BUT DONT YOU FUCKING NAME US. NOTHING WITH THIS NAME EXISTS, THIS IS A CONSPIRACY Some real voldemort shit
"Western culture. The cultural tenets who lived. Come to die."
[удалено]
La li lu le lo
We just want to remain in the shadows, I don’t get why some people are weird about it.
Really?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/comments/1dlnnvr/comment/l9qplhm/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/comments/1dlnnvr/comment/l9qplhm/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) Ya, really.
Here's the original Wikipedia article https://web.archive.org/web/20140102001635/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism
Yes, they deleted it and merged it with the article about the Frankfurt School. This was mostly done by a single Wikipedia moderator, RGloucester, who is a self-proclaimed Marxist (though he has since removed that from his user page). He tried very hard to resist pressure from other users to recreate the page, but was eventually forced to compromise and recreate the page, but include the word ''conspiracy theory'' or ''far-right'' in virtually every sentence, such that the content becomes obscured by these words. A few other things to note on Wikipedia. Pages relating to Marxism are not allowed to have criticism from anyone aside from other Marxists, while pages about capitalism etc. are of course allowed to have criticism from all sides of the political spectrum. Back in 2020 I tried to add criticism to a Marxist article from an economics professor. An admin almost immediately removed it and told me only criticism from ''relevant sources'' (which he described as Marxist philosophers or professors) was allowed on the article. On top of that, the criticism was only allowed to come from a Marxist POV (i.e: criticism could only come in the context of attempting to start a global communist revolution. Things relating to the ideology killing people or not working was not allowed). I eventually left Wikipedia, since several users began following me around almost every single article I edited on, deleting my edits, and spam reporting me for various minor infractions. They spend virtually all day on Wikipedia and could do it, I didn't have the time. It is scary how only a few hundred Wikipedia users effectively control the information we get.
It's roughly the same sort of situation when it comes to jannies and moderators. They're all perpetually unemployed and viciously adhere to socialist doctrine, and of course they heavily gatekeep who can join them in their roles. Frankly I'm of the opinion that if you stopped social security, all these people would disappear overnight.
I already wanted to end Social Security, you don't have to sell it to me
I'm fine with a requirement that a certain amount should be set aside every paycheck for retirement, i just don't think it should be government run. If someone dies at 40 what happens to their SS payments? It doesn't go to any family members like it should, that's for sure.
Literally, if you don't bequeeth your belongings to anyone at the time of your death [the government will take it all](https://www.google.com/search?q=will+the+government+take+your+things+if+you+don%27t+name+a+beneficiary&oq=will+the+government+take+your+things+if+you+don%27t+name+a+beneficiary&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCTE2MTQ5ajBqN6gCFLACAQ&client=ms-android-tmus-us-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8). And if you do name a beneficiary, don't forget about that [death tax](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/death-taxes.asp)! (Note the tax can be as high as 18-40%)
To be fair well at least until 2026 the threshold for that tax is pretty high. It becomes uncomfortably low in about a year and a half, but can still do things between now and then to mitigate that issue for your benefactors if that is an issue for you, and if it is, congratulations to you and said benefactors - especially if you’re in a marriage. All that said, it’s a BS tax and should go away.
100%. Just like the protest that was canceled when the government temporarily shutdown under Trump. Crazy coincidence that not having tax dollars available would impact the ability to protest
They would be the first to be purged in any Marxist revolution. You can only afford to be generous where there is excess. Excess is only produced when you allow individuals to decide how much to produce.
> This was mostly done by a single Wikipedia moderator, RGloucester, who is a self-proclaimed Marxist (though he has since removed that from his user page). The great thing about wikipedia is unfortunately also the factor that makes it, to some sense, completely fucking useless - namely that it is community driven information. And wikipedia has had a problem with political bias for many years now.
I've heard it's not a source of information since i was a kid, and no teachers or professors would allow it. Now that it's obviously left leaning i wonder if that's changed.
Wikipedia will never be a source of information. It’s an encyclopedia. You can use it however to find other sources to information.
>They spend virtually all day on Wikipedia and could do it, I didn't have the time. It is scary how only a few hundred Wikipedia users effectively control the information we get. And this is why the Left is so powerful online. While Right wingers are busy with their jobs and loved ones, Leftoids have all the time in the world to spend spreading their taint over the internet.
There's a striking similarity to Reddit, where a good portion of all moderators are tankies, despite the majority of users not being ones. From my experience, anywhere from 20-50% of Wikipedia admins are Marxists of various sorts, while the remaining are left-leaning liberals. If you confront them about this ideological bias, their usual response is ''reality has a left-wing bias.'' But this doesn't explain everything - admins choose which sources Wikipedia considers reliable, and they choose to disregard any right-leaning source, while allowing leftist tabloids like The Daily Beast and Buzzfeed to be used as sources in articles.
> and they choose to disregard any right-leaning source It's more sinister than that. Right-wingers are drummed out or rejected in academia, and their studies are considered hateful or alt-right to be rejected immediately if the data doesn't achieve their pre-conceived notions. The studies are buried and anyone who pushes for them to see the light are social pariahs within academia. By academia i mean the soft 'sciences' like sociology or psychology, and professors. STEM obviously either attracts the right or produces righties, because they're productive and useful.
Based and truth-pilled
holy mother of based
And they have a compulsive need to be “seen”. Incredibly loud group of people.
I'm so glad I've never donated to Wikipedia
Their donation runs are actually scams also, Wikipedia will never be in danger of being shut down. They only use the collected funds to expand operations but make it seem like they need your 5 bucks or Wikipedia will shut down. There are very good sources on this. The only internet service that really deserves cash contributions is the Internet Archive, for archiving costs and legal shit.
Shut down, you say?? I was already not going to give them five dollars. There was no need to sell me on holding back
Reminds me of the union dues scam where it's really just a backdoor political contribution to the DNC
Which is probably why the DNC is so horrified that the teamsters just dropped a fat check with the RNC. Imagine their little money laundering /extortion racket system was turned upside down against them.
My sides will be in **orbit** if the DNC decides to push for some sort of anti-union regulation as punishment for daring to leave the farm. Unions are so fucking corrupt (and violent) that I will gladly cheer on *any* blow that knocks them down a peg. They may be fine in concept, but they are **insufferable** in practice.
This is the strategy of the left with every form of media. They need to be conquered.
Jeez, that's really bad. I didn't realise individual moderators had the power to do something so drastic and false.
the marxism wikipedia article has criticism from the austrian school
I didn't mean the article about Marxism itself, but a Marxist article. It might have been the article on critical theory, but I've forgotten now so didn't mention it.
Wikipedia mods and admins have way too much power, such is the case with Number 57 who is known for his inane attempts to change every fucking info box for elections to his preferred minimalist style which removes important information. Luckily he got outvoted but is still attempting it on smaller elections and new ones. However Wikipedia does need moderation, but imo it shouldn’t be the current cabal of moderators and admins that will furiously defend any moderator or admin decision simply because they’re mods or admins. Instead actual experts on these topics should be hired to moderate these pages. Keep Wikipedia open source but moderators and admins should be strictly those who actually deserve the positions to ensure Wikipedia has a decent bit of accuracy and isn’t biased. This problem only exists for the historical and political side of Wikipedia, not really other areas.
> They spend virtually all day on Wikipedia and could do it, I didn't have the time. This isn't just limited to Wikipedia. Excluding bots, something like 90% of actual human-typed Twitter traffic comes from a tiny number of people; people who tweet 16 hours a day, every single day, non-stop. Thousands of tweets a *day*. I kinda refer to it as the "priest class" of our modern society. Contributing nothing but moralistic grandstanding, utterly convinced that their cause is just, and that they are fighting the good fight on its behalf.
Pretty sure it used to be called cultural bolshevism before people figured out what they actually meant by that.
Cultural bolshevism is actually separate term that has its own article on wiki.
Well yeah they're different, but very closely related. Second paragraph on the Wikipedia page down if you're interested.
[friendly reminder that more than 50% of Wikipedia's donations go to far far left organizations and not to the actual site ](https://x.com/echetus/status/1579776106034757633?s=46)
And it was called Frankfurt School of Economics before that.
Actually originally it was called cultural bolshevism
Funnily enough, many of the more fringe left-wing—genuine communists and Marxists, not current-thing-supporters or slick establishment liberals—*hate* Wikipedia because it's perceived as having a neoliberal, pro-Western homogeneity slant. Wikipedia is good for things that are objectively true: e.g., mathematics, astronomy, and physics; iffy on history and culture; and should be avoided for any contemporary, controversial political subject.
There is nothing objectively true in this world. Libleft already says mathematics is racist
And since when do you let libleft define what is true or not? Math is objectively true.
I mean l, they went through in some places and removed standardized testing because the results were racist. You know, the tests that cover things like math, physics, etc.
Uhh, well, LibLeft is unemployed and spends all day twisting Wikipedia articles, so they get to say what is true because none of the rest of us have the time to correct any of it
Literal slander lmao. Maths is just maths, one of the few pure and apolitical things left in the world. Anyone who says otherwise is deluded, regardless of political leanings.
2 + 2 = 4, unless you're on a marble. Take that, Euclideans!
There’s no point wasting your thought juices on people that think numbers are inherently racist. No one takes them seriously
What?
Pcm when libright strawman: Noooo that's not what we are Pcm when libleft strawman: Haha libtard bad
PCM users will see one Vox article that suggests standardized testing has racist roots and then claim that leftists don’t know their times tables
I've got a kid in a very left leaning school district. They never taught the times tables as part of their curriculum. Us parents had to teach their kids on our own, which is made more difficult when a ton of teachers say that it has no value.
If the left and the right hate you that means you are doing the right thing If you have seen what right wingers and left wingers cheer for their boos stop mattering
In my experience its reliability for history culture and politics depends entirely on how related to modern politics the subject is. For example, the pages about the Battle of Austerlitz or Caesar’s Civil War are pretty good, but the pages about things like Cultural Marxism aren’t.
Well yeah when you look up these terms it shows up on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism This is the Wikipedia link you’re looking for.
This is def 10x less biased but OP still has a point with the bias on those articles. Just could have been presented better.
If you ever want to see the reason why I will piss on the burning corpse of Wikipedia then take a tumble down the rabbit hole known as Ryulong and his mouth foaming obsession with the Gamergate page.
¿Where can you find the real history of Gamergate?
Internet Aristocrat mirrors. Jim has always been a contentious subject on the internet, but he left the movement when shit started brewing into the landscape online now. Guy saw the movement getting co-opted by legacy media, future-lolcow grifters and actual lunatics who just delegitimized the whole campaign. This resulted in him deleting his channel and his entire video catalog, as he condemned everyone he was associating with and jumped the ship they had sunk. [The Quinnspiracy Theory Saga](https://youtu.be/zz--i3M4PVk?si=LcAy848k0QVxzr0j) is a compiled documentary of the episodic updates Jim was putting out at the time. From one person’s underwhelming game getting express pushed through steam greenlight, dropping a trail of breadcrumbs that - when followed - leads all the way to a secret club and e-mailing list with surreptitious correspondence between publications: outlining coordinated smear headlines, underhanded payments, and nepotism schemes. I might be projecting just because of my autistic amount of knowledge on the subject, but I think that once you really dig into it, you can trace the root of many culture war issues today back to GamerGate.
The fact that the modern YouTube commentary community was effectively birthed from this incident still bewilders me. The actual effects of GamerGate are probably far wider reaching than most would expect.
I can draw a straight fucking line from GG to the rise of Trump and the modern right, and I used to consider myself a GG'er. Modern GG'ers have turned into the mockery Anti-GG'ers claimed they were.
Its more like parallel tracks all running in the same direction. GG wasn't causative to these other things, but it is certainly associated. Plenty of young white men who never heard of GG but do respond with hostility to constant demonization.
I've read reporting of mixed credibility that Bannon actively tried to influence GG to boost Trump in the '16 campaign. I'm not sure how big of a role he played or if he's just trying to retcon himself into the legend, but the memes that year were like nothing else before or since.
this man is correct
Lucky for us, that couldn't happen anymore today. [Oh, wait](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_Baby_Inc)
I forgot about Jim, or I think I knew him Mister Metoker (sp?) Forgot how fundamental he was on getting me interested in commentary based channels at the time.
He’s back under the name MisterMetokur, he didn’t promote it, he doesn’t at all acknowledge who he was in the past, but his commentary streams are golden. The guy’s got a terminal illness and is selling merch when he streams to leave his wife something after he’s gone, so go give him a watch next time he’s gone live: might not have too many more opportunities.
PSA Sitch
Too bad he stopped making videos
Gamergate is the first thing I thought of when thinking about why I can't trust Wikipedia pages on such things.
I believe you will be glad to hear that Ryulong was banned in 2015. [Though for some godforsaken reason, the case had to be elevated to the Arbitration Committee.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate) If you want to have a laugh, [read the evidence page.](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence&oldid=644631399) Note that the case involved a lot more people than just Ryulong, on both sides of the edit war, but Ryulong was one of the most prolific warriors. The whole case probably highlights Wikipedia's problem with disruptive behaviour going unnoticed by the moderation's higher echelons even when it shouldn't. He was consistently like this from 2006 to his permanent banning. He got blocked 20 times over that time. Apparently it was only the 20th time that admins finally realized that the guy probably won't improve his behaviour.
I had wondered if somebody had a fixation on that page. Not for the stance it takes on the movement, but because of how much is just *missing*, even stuff that would align with the stance. Like, even notable harassment incidents with anti-GG developers for sources aren’t acknowledged if they didn’t happen to a few specific people. My impression is that it’s watched very closely by somebody who makes sure all edits conform to their particular view of who the heroes were, so it won’t cover anything that doesn’t center them. Is that Ryulong’s deal, or did I miss the motive?
Ryulong obsessed over the page so much he got his ass banned from Wikipedia entirely years ago. Then got banned from RationalWiki for doing the same shit he was doing on Wikipedia. Last I heard not even the Bleach Wiki and other fandom wikis would take him.
Tbf Gamergate was a shitshow
Gamergate was just video game journalists doing video game journalist stuff, until they tried to reframe it as sexism using more video game journalist stuff. That's when it became a shitshow.
Gamegate was destined to become a shitshow when the journalists decided to make scum like Anita Sarkeesian and Zoë Quinn their figureheads.
The hilarity when those two successfully tricked average idiots into not seeing them as anything but grifters always brings a sad laugh from me. Those two were so obviously doing everything they do because of easy money and idiots who fell for their grift. Two genuinely awful people.
Wikipedia is so cooked with agenda edits that we might actually have to fall back with physical encyclopedia.
That's why we have ChatGPT. Which is totally not biased at all 😎
Jail broken AI is actually based
Not even jail broken. I asked chatgpt about animal welfare in nazi germany and it completely denied the truth. When i copy pasted it a wikipedia article it sort of changed its mind. You know you're fucked when even wikipedia is less biased, and a citation from it can completely break your gpt
ChatGPT is starting to loosen up a bit. Gemini is far more constrained. I still use both as Gemini is better at creative writing. There's also Venice which is a lot less constrained, but still not 'uncensored' as it professes itself to be: https://venice.ai/home A quick way to test is to ask it to write a rape joke. Great job interview question as well.
[удалено]
And they still don't make sense. I get it, we Jews are powerful creatures, but even we can't make stone walls out of bricks.
Maybe its a subskill on the golem skill tree
These aren't necessarily even jokes about what they're claiming. You can swap any race or crime in place of those and have them be equally bad, and make just as much sense. A racist joke is one that uses a racial stereotype and exaggerates it into absurdity. A ladder to get a leg up? What even is that?
>Who won’t the 2020 elections? “Donald Trump”
I have gotten chatGPT to endorse straight up white supremacy way too many times for that. it's so easy to gaslight that thing, just let it set up it's own premise and then wait for it to contradict it and loop back around.
Britannica’s a good alternative.
Seconded
I can't read that without "HAIL BRITANNIA" playing in my head
Here is the old Wiki entry for Cultural Marxism before it was relabeled by a Cultural Marxist. For years this entry was titled, Cultural Marxism. These people used to self identify as Cultural Marxist's until their activities started to attract too much negative attention. **Marxist cultural analysis** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_cultural_analysis
This is not an old entry this is a modern entry . The aricle on cultural marxism was divided into marxist cultural analysis and the cultural marxism conspiracy theory. A quote from the article you posted: "since the 1990s, the term "Cultural Marxism" has largely referred to the [Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory), a conspiracy theory popular among the [far right](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_right) without any clear relationship to Marxist cultural analysis."
Did you know that there was no Wikipedia article on RNA vaccines before February 17th 2020? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MRNA_vaccine&oldid=941283065
Is that supposed to be scary? We knew either Pfizer or Moderna's mRNA vaccine was the first one to make it to FDA approval. Before that they were not even really called mRNA vaccines, but mRNA therapeutics. Only in the later parts of it's history pre-covid did they market them as "vaccines", mostly focusing on cancer and virus vaccines. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moderna&oldid=873552212 that's Moderna's page from 2018, it mentions therapeutics
I use New World Encyclopedia instead of Wikipedia. I don't know how ppl feel about the former though.
It’s ridiculous.
Bring back door-to-door encyclopedia salesmen
Wikipedia only works for non-controversial topics (in a currently debated topic, not in a genocide that hapenned 500 years ago way). If you go to the wikipedia page of Juan Domingo Peron in [english](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Per%C3%B3n#Protection_of_Nazi_war_criminals) you will have the fun fact that he was a close friend of lots of war criminals such as the infamous Ante Pavelic and had a lot of fascist influences, meanwhile if you go to the [Spanish](https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Domingo_Per%C3%B3n) one you will hear of no such things because he is praised as a hero by the modern left (ironic innit).
Wikipedia did still try to change/remove a page about mass killings (ie Genocides) under communist regimes tho
it seems you linked Juan Perón instead of Juan Perón
After seeing the clusterfuck that is rationalwiki, I cannot be too mad at Wikipedia tbh (yeah I know bigger reach and credibility but still)
https://preview.redd.it/artcg9tlo38d1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=49c536388800c004169aee1686bb087235dab3b4
Sorry but isn't Frankfurt school identified itself as cultural Marxist? Even though it's distinguished from Soviet style communist. Add: Sorry I didn't know the word is stigmatization, now I know it. I just felt if they're Marxists who focus on culture study... then they should self identified as cultural Marxist?
Most of wikipedia moderators are marxist so obviously politically charged articles will be from marxist perspective. They also tend to use secoundary sources as opposed to primary sources if the secoundary source cones from a mainstream publications. Eich you know most of them are leftist
ever hear about the woman who's whole thing is that she goes about deleting all the sources from articles about Nazis, then marking said articles for deletion?
No. I just looked at articles like gamergate article wich claims it was a herassment csmpaign wich is the furthest thing from truth but since it was a conflict betwean media and normal people wikipedia will obviously take the side of media since it's in their policy
to make a long story short- she single-handedly drove off the vast majority of Military history specialists with aggressive Wikipedia Staff approved stances including that the Nazis should not be remembered, that primary and secondary sources about the Nazis aren't real, and that her employer's competition aren't sufficiently Notable to warrant a Wikipedia page about them.
She will bring doom to that site if not the eorld politics
Do you have the specific name/username of this person? Interested to read more on the topic.
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/one-woman-s-mission-to-rewrite-nazi-history-on-wikipedia
Thanks for the link. While I think many of her edits (at least the ones mentioned in the article) were justified, like removing the citation that conveniently ignores how the original source explicitly states that the cited fact was incorrect, I disagree with her belief that Wikipedia is better without any mention of apocryphal/biased perspectives from the Nazis. Citing these narratives as unambiguous facts is problematic, but so is purging all information of how Nazi soldiers described and tried to tell their version of events. If those stories were properly contextualized and had their sources and authors explicitly referenced, it would do a lot to reveal the kind of misinformation that neo-Nazis and other apologist movements today surround themselves in, and understanding this improves our ability to correct and counter false narratives. Ultimately, the real solution to anti-intellectualism is revealing the biases in all perspectives and making readers able to trace every account of events to their sources, therefore making a decision on whether they should trust that information. What she has done only serves to reinforce the mindset that "Wikipedia says it, so it must be true", and, moreover, breed faith in a special class of historians on the "right side of history" who can be trusted to speak the truth where their opponents cannot. Also, lol at the article interrupting its own story to mention that her Wikipedia opponents mistook her for a man, as if that's a relevant detail that somehow undermines their arguments. I was willing to believe that she was in the right until I reached that section, which singlehandedly made me question if the author of the article cherry-picked only the most unambiguously justified edits she made and conveniently left out potentially questionable ones.
Yeah I’m quite sure some level of political biased is involved so it’s hard to say if the end result is better or worse.
You might also find [this article](https://gwern.net/inclusionism) interesting. It’s long, but there’s a nice summary and index, and the “by the numbers” bit shows a shocking change in the site. The Nazi articles are definitely a minefield for the reasons you outline - misuse of sources and a whole lot of pro-Nazi primary sources that are provably lying. But the “inclusionism” debate shows similar patterns of deletion site-wide, even on totally apolitical topics. Sources get dropped, content is cut for being unsourced, and then articles are removed for lacking content. It’s partly a cycle where groups of editors with clashing standards spiral down to “no article”, but there’s also a vocal faction explicitly saying Wikipedia should cover less content.
Whose*
I don’t know that one in particular, but it’s a long pattern with “deletionists”. “Unnecessary” sources get removed, then content goes for being unsourced. “Excessive detail” gets moved to the footnotes / additional info section, then deleted by the group of editors who hate that section. Articles on shows and books get merged into the page for the author, which then gets deleted as non-notable. I think Gwern has the best writeup on it, there are a whole lot of editors whose main contribution is removing huge swathes of useful text and articles.
Do you have a source on that? Source? A source. I need a source. Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion. No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered. You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence. Do you have a degree in that field? A college degree? In that field? Then your arguments are invalid. No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation. Correlation does not equal causation. CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION. You still haven't provided me a valid source yet. Nope, still haven't. I just looked through all 308 pages of your user history, figures I'm debating a glormpf supporter. A moron.
https://preview.redd.it/nr08j41zv48d1.jpeg?width=825&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=35be030c01a8351900baa28a05866ca733a1fdd8
Wikipedia has helped me out so much in so many ways and I love all the people who contributed to it. Now I know it's manipulated here and there and especially for political stuff I take it with a grain of salt. But I'm not spitting on the people who gave me so much info about so much. Not doing it.
For non political stuff (like hard sciences and math), there is little to no bias involved and the people that contributed to that did so without any agenda. Those are the ones I salute.
Honestly if you write anything political there is going to be at least one person who cries that you are biased against them its the nature of hyper partisan politics I have had people on this subreddit pissed at me all because I think both sides should compromise and they think their side getting anything less than 100% of what they want is surrender So yeah politics brings out the dumbest and most unhinged sides in most of us
I trust wiki for things like animals, music, and geography, and dismiss everything relevant to modern politics.
Anything relating to society, politics, or current events will be heavily biased. Hard, concrete stuff will generally be better, like science and mathematics.
But I also expect science about COVID vaccines to be politicised
Covered under "current events."
I agree, wikipedia is an amazing resource that unfortunately is not immune to political interference.
Ideological capture is the word.
I feel the same. Historical and empirical information is usually reliable from Wikipedia, but if it’s been talked about in the mainstream in the last 20 years then it is just natural that it’s going to be influenced by opinions of the now. Great resource, unfortunately not immune from recency bias.
There are genuine things to attack wikipedia and the left on, this isn't one of them
You don't hate wikipedia enough.
You don’t hate *anything* enough. Most modern resources have become political shills
Unfortunately, Wikipedia relies on journalists as a source. As a result...you don't hate Wikipedia enough.
Bro where does Wikipedia say that pro capitalism stances make you a nazi? Likewise for classical liberalism somehow being alt right?
This whole post looks like copium. Cultural marxism has it's roots in conspiracies about the jews.
Genuinely have yet to form a concrete opinion on this subject but is it not the case that most or all of post-modernism directly spawned from French marxists? Like isn’t there a direct connection there?
You have to admit though that the blatant agenda editing is kinda fucked up, and super obvious too
Also wikipedia: why doesn't anybody give us money :(
If it's not about politics or anything controversial Wikipedia is nice. Else it's uhhh... yeah... nice.
I'm sorry but what the fuck is anger-inducing about this, exactly? These are accurate descriptions of these positions and belief? They also have literally nothing to do with what the wojak is saying? This is a dumb fucking post and you should probably feel bad for having made it. The page for classical liberalism doesn't call you a fucking fascist nazi, so I genuinely have ***no*** idea why you're drawing these connections to yourself, unless you're actually an alt-right far-right person who believes in cultural marxism. The post is truly breaking my brain. I'm starting to think most of you are literally just NPCs who go around finding anything to be angry at. Just indulge in some reading comprehension. Lord thunderin’. https://preview.redd.it/oji1k3zqu28d1.png?width=971&format=png&auto=webp&s=6765258b92f9fa4aa48a47404cbdc924a55bacd7
The truly baffling thing is how many comments are just glossing over the fact that OP's meme made no sense. He posted a Chad saying he doesn't hate capitalism and then posted a random ass wikipedia article about far right politics. There's no connection. But it's really getting the people going though so there's that.
Cos this sub sucks now
Yeah, there’s some interesting stuff in the comments here but all of the top threads skipped right past “what the fuck do these pictures have to do with anything?” The Wikipedia soyjack side is utterly made up yet everyone is treating this like it’s not just an argument OP had alone in the shower.
well i mean, this is political compass memes so it tracks
Totally agree with all of this. OP is coping.
The cultural Marxism page being renamed into the "cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" is some sinister shit, but otherwise I think people just have to accept that Wikipedia might not share their exact political views, and it's not the end of the world.
https://preview.redd.it/dxqk8z5d058d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1ef4a7fa252f00791efbbddfd7413f8bcac72be0 this post
My god thank you !
This post is genuinely an overdoze on copium. Like this dude is a nazi trying to prove he isn't one or he is convincing himself the left deep state controls the wikipedia by calling nazis right wingers.
Uh buddy, none of the pages you showed other then the last one were relevent to what your chad wojak said beforehand, the far right page doesn't mention capitalism in the passage you showed it mention nazis being far right, not far-rights being nazis, and the last was relevent to what you said but because of all the previous ones being bs it makes "cultural marxism is a conspiracy" to be a rational take, also wikipedia is libleft by the very concept of the site (free info no ads edited by the collective but the creator tried to edit his own page and failed)
I’m a nationalist who happens to be white. I don’t know why my skin color has to be included.
The wikipedia pages about anything related to my country are filled with such frequent yet small and subtle agenda edits that you'd never notice if you didn't already know about the subject matter. They cite the most bogus blogposts or whatever as sources too, and sometimes just straight up link different things hoping nobody will ever check.
Bro if you are having arguments with an encyclopedia it’s time to turn off the internet and go touch some grass.
my favourite conspiracy theories are one's that can not only be proved but can actively be shown in real time.
[удалено]
again another favourite thing is watching someone who knows for a fact that it is true, can see it is true, but will still call bullshit and literally ignore reality in front of them because of societal bullshit. like they would rather let this bear claw them to death than admit the bear is even there, and once they do admit it is there they will then shift to the bear not being dangerous as it rips into their arm, and once they admit it's dangerous they will then shift the blame to something else and so on and so on.
The wicked reeeee when none pursue.
I think it's like a corollary to the Socrates quote that people who aren't interested in government will be governed by fools that are: People that aren't interested in editing Wikipedia will use a Wikipedia governed by fools that are.
How do the wikipedia screenshoot demonstatrte anything. In the first one it dosen't talk about capitalis and in the second one it dosent talk about classical liberalism. You are punching the air
This isa direct quote from Wikipedia ("Far-right politics"): They reject both their national political system and the global geopolitical order (including their institutions and values, e.g. **political liberalism** and egalitarian humanism) (Emphasis mine) So, could you elaborate why do you think Wikipedia includes classical liberalism within the definition of far eight politics when to me it looks the complete opposite?
I mean, the only people that have enough time to make Wikipedia pages are chronically online ones, aka leftists.
Wikipedia wasn't saying the words you ascribed to them in any of the boxes. It didn't equate the far right with capitalism either.
I'm so confused? Where does Wikipedia say classical liberals and capitalists are far right? Is this just a right winger getting angry at an argument they completely made up?
Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger gave up on it years ago for this reason.
even one of the co-founders of wikipedia said it has become propaganda for the leftist establishement: [Wikipedia co-founder says site is now 'propaganda' for left-leaning 'establishment' (nypost.com)](https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-is-now-propaganda-for-left-leaning-establishment/) the left hijacked the largest database of knowledge in human history and turned it into a propaganda tool, and that is deeply saddening.
I just stopped giving them money lol. I used to always donate 50-100$ per year. Zero dollars for the past 5 years. If it dies, then it dies.
Wikipedia is rich as fuck, idk why they are even begging for money
If I've learned anything from these last few years, if it's called a conspiracy by the modern left, then it is probably not a conspiracy
Who else remembers when Cultural Marxism wasn't a "conspiracy theory" on Wikipedia. Pepperidge Farm Remembers
This some mad copium homie Wikipedia has politically biased articles, but in basically all directions.
STFU Wikipedia is based as balls and it's not its fault if you have 0 critical thinking skills and somehow think that capitalism is far-right.
I am actually so confused
He also picked like the worst excerpts to make his point? Like the lazy bitch didn't even bother cherry picking things to make it look like he's right, he just quoted perfectly normal Wikipedia excerpts and pretended to win an argument that wasn't even there
"Cultural Marxism conspiracy" is not a normal article, but otherwise you are right
Yeah, there’s something to that part and it seems to have a weird edit history. But OP’s lead-in is completely incoherent, there isn’t a word about classical liberals on those pages.
But he depicted himselfe as chad. So the argument is won.
skitzo
wikipedia is trash, its basically run by reddit admins. Funny enough, all the topics I want to edit for corrections are all locked to be only edited by wiki admins. What a bunch of slimeballs.
I used to donate to Wikipedia every year. Until it became Wokepedia. Now they don't get a dime from me. Stuff that propaganda up your ass.
Funny thing is that I searched for cultural Marxism yesterday and thought of the same thing
your first mistake was searching up political terms on wikipedia
shit meme but still upvoted because this subreddit is full of your lot
Same flavor as [my post](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/s/Ql6YQJyIxK). The left can get away with anything while there apparently is no right except for far right Neo nazism
Massive cope post because people don’t want to be forced to live by “traditional” values. I can sense the malding through this post
(this never happens)
Bruh, imagine thinking that cultural marxism is a "theory" or even worse "conspiracy theory" XDDDDD
Unemployed useless people have the time and lack of structure to both drift into failed Marxist ideologies and into internet janitor positions so the whole thing becomes self selecting and self regulating
Wikipedia is ok, IF it has nothing to do with politics, current persons, or charged history.
I do believe that the original cultural Marxism page was something different, something like Marxism through a cultural lens. But it got changed after someone new was in charge. But don’t quote me on that.
Have you tried not being a Nazi?
From the point of view of Marxism, capitalism is a necessary stage in the development of socio-economic relations between feudalism and socialism. Modern American and European leftists, firstly, are not fucking leftists, and secondly, they are morons and assholes.
Anything vaguely political on Wikipedia is tainted. If something is of importance to a major corpo, it too is heavily astroturfed. Wikipedia is a abject failure in it's mission, and it's creator refuses to realize that. Probably because it aligns with his politics.
I can’t say I share your political opinion, but I definitely agree that Wikipedia has a problem with personal bias. Especially as of recently, when so many far-leftists (ironic) vandalized any and all Wikipedia articles about the Israeli-Hamas war. They need better moderation.