It is true that Wikipedians have, in general, more knowledge than the average person. However, Wikipedians have invested significant time and effort into accquiring[sic] this knowledge, and their efforts should not be dismissed as simply coming to them automatically from being in a position of privilege.
I’m actually really smart and not just because I apparently was born into wealth
The use of the term knowledge elite[sic - they literally bold it] implies that we are hoarding our knowledge, and the tools we use to create it, from the masses. We are doing the opposite. Most people are just not interested. It is a sheltered perspective to think that the average disenfranchised struggling person in poverty has any desire to edit Wikipedia.
Nobody’s calling you the fucking knowledge elite my friend. I wish my imaginary enemies were this complimentary of me (EDIT: I stand corrected, this is in fact a response to another essay that does refer to all wikipedia editors as the actual KNOWLEDGE ELITE. I guess all of wikipedia is one big
)We do not owe anybody corrective action. Many of us do not consider ourselves global citizens and do not feel obligated to act as such.
“I’m not obligated to help anyone” get in the pit
KNOWLEDGE ELITE:
The sort of “enlightened” liberals keep whining about source citation. When you do, they start going on about “bias of source” and how you’re wrong for not accepting their 100% fed-approved version of reality. Same guy who tells me this also says “he’s not a liberal”, even though he goes to a bourgeois private school modeled off the american education system.
Also worth stating, AFAICT this isn’t any sort of official wikipedia policy peace, it’s just an essay by a contributor. I think it’s effectively just an opinion piece.
Also, on the general opinions of the essay’s author:
This user is proud to be an American!
The immigration one might be the worst. The anti political correctness and transgender bathroom use ones are also pretty bad, but this fucker just hates foreigners.
Reddit atheist moment. These are the people causing my avoidance of the word “atheist” to describe myself.
Hey, how about you choose euthanasia and spare us your incoherent gibberish you claim to be opinions?
In this moment, this user is euphoric.
this user believes that the death penalty is mercy, and that the worst criminals should suffer…
this user is a right-lib who agrees with two different strains of extreme conservatism
This user is in favor of restricting immigration, whether legal or illegal.
What do you mean by that?
- AOL in username
- Old cars
- Rock music
- Alcohol references (Guinness and Jack Daniel’s of all things lmao)
Either they’re doing a bit or it’s the most stereotypical boomer imaginable.
“Reduces inequality, increases happiness…” Vs. “This user likes Capitalism.”
So, which one, western man?
Tommy needy drinky
Correct me if I’m wrong, Prolewiki DOES require you to cite sources right? Also, bold of wikipedia to talk about “reliable sources”.
Yes but some of those sources are Chinese so they don’t count /s
Anyway they do but it isn’t super uncommon for their source links to be dead which has been very frustrating for me
I feel like part of Prolewiki’s dilapidation is iirc the forum to become an admin is pretty extensive. So there’s a shortage of editors on there. So pages get left unedited for months or years and source links die off.
I wanted to make some minor edit months ago and got a page telling me to write half a bachelors degree thesis worth in Marxist questions. Noped out pretty quick, since I only wanted to edit like 2 lines. It feels much more involved than Hexbears “Are you a chud on any of these 4 topics?” that it feels okay to give oneliner responses to.
I think, on top of what others have commented, they also had to defend themselves from a bunch of ACP infiltrators at one point as well. So there’s also need to screen out bad faith actors who are more familiar with leftist language.
I’m sorry but that is ludicrous shit, 13-16 questions (actually 17-25, as many of these questions are two questions) “as detailed as possible” and “as lengthy as you need” and then the editors take a vote on you? I sadly shall never be a PW editor.
deleted by creator
Prolewiki has had wreckers infiltrate and mess a ton of stuff up.
I do get that, but the wiki has run into a problem of having pages that haven’t been updated in years. Maybe if the application was loosened up a bit and you would just need to get your edits screened before posting for awhile after you join could make it a bit more active.
It’s a balance, as I understand.
I think you don’t have to perfectly answer all the questions, they will take you on board as a sort of learning editor even if you don’t have a perfect understanding of theory. (Source: am library editor)
Also you can edit a page without an account.
ⓘ This user is suspected of being a cat. Please report any suspicious behavior.
I’m guessing the “sometimes, any source at all” is only a conservapedia problem and he’s just conflating the two.
We should start a struggle session in the Talk page of that essay.
Bit idea: we get them to try to define “Wikipedia fundamentals,” arguing that yes, it does indeed mean being “…radically centrist because the truth is always in the middle.”
WiKKKipedia
WikipeCIA
