this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2026
1 points (100.0% liked)
Socialism
7084 readers
6 users here now
Rules TBD.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
that's a fascinating take; what makes you believe this?
Probably because communism means that the means of production, property and society is owned and operated by 'the people', in the case of Stalinist USSR everything was owned by uncle Joe and if you upset him he sent you to a fucking gulag.
Somehow, I think if the workers were in charge and it was actually communist or socialist they wouldn't have been sending themselves to the gulag.
The USSR during Stalins time was a dictatorship masquerading as communism.
Moldy cold war propaganda is moldy.
I don't want to be the guy arguing on the Internet, but just read the Wikipedia article on communism here. When the Russian people toppled their last monarch, they never actually went full communism.
this explains a lot about why you believe this.
would you still believe wikipedia if i shared freedom of information act releases that directly contradict wikipedia? (the releases also contradict npr, cnn, cbs, bbc, etc.)
If you think Wikipedia is biased, then I have nothing further to say to you. Enjoy OAN, News Max, Fox News, and all that other right wing horse shit. Wikipedia is community consensus. It's the only place I get my "news" from.
yes, wikipedia is community consensus and community consensus once was that iraq had wmd's -- the foia proved otherwise. consensus isn't truth; it's just the most popular opinion at the time.
the foia gives you what the us government tries to hide. it is literally the us government itself being legally forced to share its secrets to the american public because of a law that was passed decades before the us gov't became fully captured by corporate interests and the epstein class.
To illustrate further: https://practicalpie.com/bandwagon-fallacy/
It really wasn't.
here's wikipedia's consensus still framing the government's wmd claims as 'assertions' while uncritically repeating them years after the iraqi invasion: https://wayback.qa-archive-it.org/all/20080911173302/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
The foia showed the government had doubts before the invasion -- wikipedia didn't.
Okay..?
Just because wiki says that doesn't mean that was the community consensus, millions of people protested that war. In my country it is still the largest protest in history.
We're not discussing the general public's consensus.
We're discussing Wikipedia's consensus driven decision process and why it makes Wikipedia an unreliable source.
Wikipedia said that there was consensus and anyone w eyes and ears knew that was bullshit -- as you've pointed out -- but people still want to use Wikipedia as a source anyways.
Facts hurt their feelings, that's why they resist wikipedia
Lying is all they have, facts hurt their feelings. That's why they remove comments that disprove their dogmas.
Lying is all Tankies have, facts hurt their feelings.
Wikipedia is biased by nature as a secondary source, just towards the political paradigm so you don't recognize it as easily. In fact, here's a Wikipedia page you might want to check out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia
Hey does ProleWiki have a page talking about its own issues?
I wouldn't know, I've barely used it.
Just checked and it doesn't seem to, but considering it's a much smaller and newer project than Wikipedia that would make sense.
Fair enough. Thank you for responding.
Sure. Just took a look at your edit though, and I feel like holding ProleWiki and Wikipedia to the same standards is a bit absurd, especially cause there aren't people who go around using it as their main source of news like how boaratio is doing to wikipedia. Since ProleWiki is so much smaller, it would only make sense that the articles there are lower quality, there aren't as many of them, and they have been less reviewed, no?
So I can edit Prolewiki to be more accurate and I won't get banned, right?
Be my guest.
There's a reason it's not acceptable as a citation in university papers.
Absolutely. BTW, are you the same person as @Maeve@lemmygrad.ml?
Yes
I am always open to the truth. Please, do share.
The truth is only what they want. Facts are anti communist!
go read wikipedia's page about north korea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea
and then read the foia releases about north korea (or ateast the ones you can still access online): https://lemmygrad.ml/post/11749952/8255268