So I posted a rant a while back about the bullshit I've encountered dealing with anti communist chud articles. Funny enough I've managed to pare three back pretty significantly. The dude that was a thorn in my side has left Wikipedia. I might be able to get one communism evil article deleted. Also this fucking hero came in to actually back me up in the talk pages, which is pretty rad. But tbh compared to her, I'm fucking tiny.

So I started following this one page pretty closely as it's a popular topic and it's owned by the chuds. It's pretty frustrating as the other side gets to be as dirty and edit warring as possible, while we in the minority need to follow Wikipedia policy to the T. Literally everything I edit has at least 3 scholarly sources, yet gets reverted immediately. Literally everything I try to roll back for being bullshit gets reverted. I'll cite the actual wikipolicy, and quote the source word for word, but they're like "but it's the preference of the editors" and "I don't think that matters" and I'm all grr you guys are definitely stonewalling. There's like two editors, one which is definitely gonna get a ban at some point in the distant future as his edits are just obvious lies, the other which is a power editor who is clearly gaming the system by taking every bad edit as far as possible and tying things up with debates while he edit wars.

I have to be a lot more patient, as this is a topic which libs side more with the chuds. I'm not expecting a lot of help from the admin boards.

Sorry this is totally boring. You can totally bully me for being a nerd.

  • viva_la_juche [they/them, any]
    ·
    3 years ago

    Step 1: Wikipedia is bullshit and full of lies

    Step 2: Wikipedia is good and contains tons of information and policed by the community to keep misinfo down

    Step 3: Wikipedia is mostly bullshit and contains tons of misinformation bc the community is reactionary af

    (Political articles and stuff mostly, I know one of you nasty little poggers is gonna say ‘actually it’s good for birds or some shit’)

    • Melon [she/her,they/them]
      ·
      3 years ago

      All 3 are true in their own contexts

      1. Wikipedia is full of PR shit and nobody disputes this

      2. ima be a nasty little pogger and say that the articles on materials science tend to be pretty good since one of the most active Wikipedians of all time is a very qualified materials scientist. It's also a good resource for Catholic theology because Catholics are very overrepresented in Wikipedian demographics.

      3. Big problem. Reactionaries everywhere. Fortunately, there is a fairly large contingent of Wikipedians who are aware of it and have advocated that having fascist politics is antithetical to being a productive contributor, and Nazis should be banned on sight. This hasn't been made into policy, though.

      • LeninWalksTheWorld [any]
        ·
        3 years ago

        Catholics are very overrepresented in Wikipedian demographics

        lol this makes a lot of sense because Catholics are essentially the lore nerds of Christianity

      • Anarchist [they/them]
        ·
        3 years ago

        Big problem. Reactionaries everywhere.

        Probably has something to do with all the conservative Catholics.

      • Anarchist [they/them]
        ·
        3 years ago

        Fortunately, there is a fairly large contingent of Wikipedians who are aware of it and have advocated that having fascist politics is antithetical to being a productive contributor, and Nazis should be banned on sight. This hasn’t been made into policy, though.

        Anywhere I can read about this?

        • Melon [she/her,they/them]
          ·
          3 years ago

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_Nazis

          It's not a policy, but it's a popular (if contentious) essay