That's so funny to see as a ProleWiki author lmao, but I think it will be taken down soon. Still, natopedia using a prolewiki article as a reference is one of the most funny things to see come out.
this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2024
88 points (98.9% liked)
ProleWiki
837 readers
1 users here now
ProleWiki
A community related to the ProleWiki project.
Post in this community to request articles, provide suggestions and discuss ways to develop our project
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they cite you, then you win.
then they portray themselves as the chad and you as the wojack
That's weirdly unexpected, I feel like it's going to get removed soon.
I checked the revision date, it's been up since august this year without anyone noticing
it is gone now :(
alright who snitched you can tell me I won't get mad
I think it's my fault, I mentioned the trots and I think they came and saw.
Everyone likes a spectacle
well i didn't say anything to them. I think they summon if you mention them.
They even called trots reactionary, what a great article.
the 1000 legions of newspaper editors on their way rn
It's gone now
Incredibly reactionary edit. That text was there since 12 august, it's so strange that it gets removed just the day we're talking about it.
Gotta love how totally well sourced the edit prior to that is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reactionary&diff=next&oldid=1245187169
questionable relevance (these are ideologies having to do with territory, the nation, and foreign policy, but irredentists and revanchists can be far leftists as well as they can be reactionaries, or anything in between)
And the part they removed is:
{{see also|Revanchism|Irredentism}}
Using nebulous terminology "far leftists" and they don't even give a source on revanchists or irredentists to explain why removing it is justified. I'm not even saying they're wrong necessarily, they could be right about those terms, but the idea that they can get away with editing like that just based on a nebulous, unsourced claim. I feel like if I get too deep into reading edit logs, I'm going to end up questioning ever using wikipedia to read about anything, which is maybe for the best. I'm inclined to say reading the edits is more insightful than wikipedia itself, at least as explicitly political pages are concerned.
There is a fed among us
The Marxist Internet Archive being cited right below prolewiki is just the icing on the cake.
Wow.
I love this.
Can't believe ProleWiki is lib 😔
It's been reverted now but, honestly, any sort of wiki citing another wiki as a source is bad. The "Trotskyites are considered reactionary" section is really good though and should stay.