Oh yes they should 100% totally point us to where they got doxxed that makes so much sense, it definitely wouldn't lead to more problems for them

I mean it straight up asserts Tianamin square was a CIA backed riot that was justly put down by the authorities.

Tian'anmen square is a famous historic site, not an event. If you mean the June 4th incident, Operation Yellowbird is documented on Wikipedia itself and affirms CIA involvement. Looking at prolewiki, the page on the 1989 Tian'anmen Square riots has 33 sources listed, with sources ranging from western outlets like BBC and CBS, to scholarly sources, to wikileaks. The analysis that this was a counter-revolution, and therefore the socialists were correct in putting a stop to it rather than letting it overturn socialism, is based on the information that I believe to be well-rounded and well-sourced.

Do you disagree with the sources, or with the Marxist analysis provided based on the sources? If it's the former, what sources should be added? If it's the latter, then that brings us to back to my claim that the bias is better to be open and honest, rather than hidden, and that the basic facts are still solid and real.

And that's what it comes down to: nothing to do with it being poorly sourced, just that you disagree with it

It did, yes.

Neither does Wikipedia, at least prolewiki doesn't lie about it

Well the community sure as hell doesn't try to be better; if anything they work hard to entrench these problems as hard as possible.

People have tried it repeatedly. They get nuked instantly. It's fucking telling that Wikipedia defending liberals never actually have any idea how Wikipedia works.

With no evidence, you may as well be lying.

"I mean it straight up asserts something that contradicts what the authority figures in my life told me as a child, so obviously that means it's wrong"

-You talking about Prolewiki or any Mormon talking about a biology textbook

Me omw to learn serbian and croatian

No worries you would not trust anything if it was not published by Reuters.

It doesn't count as an own goal if you have to use a fringe interpretation to reverse the meaning lol

No, in this place that's totally valid. This is like the discourse equivalent of Appalachia inbred bloodlines

This is possibly one of the best examples I've seen so far.

elections in china (wikipedia)

People do edits to prole wiki

He who controls the flow of information controls the "truth". This is an abusable lever of power. If someone is being silenced, they can effortlessly be branded as a liar, because the arbiters of truth leave no lies behind. Welcome to the game.

Nothing on annexation of Bhutan. It's failing the same damn test as wikipedia.

Take screenshots. Use Internet Archive to prove it. There are so many options that would convince people that at least you tried, that it's crazy.

I am asking for evidence that you tried to write an article (or insert anti-zionist content in one) and got it reverted. (I should have worded the original request better)

Also, it's not like Wikipedia deletes absolutely everything of an account because it's blocked. If a page is deleted, the delete logs are there (iirc they can't be modified).
If content from a page is there, attribution requires the page history to be always present.

Wikipedia logs IP and accounts so you will not receive that evidence.

K

Which it was. Do you not look into things before talking about them? You also say it "asserts" it, as if it doesn't source the claims made.
You seem to be conflating "not reinforcing my worldview" with "being wrong and unfounded"

The irony of not understanding that objectivity is not possible when describing events, while being subjective in your critique yourself.
Prolewiki is precisely as biased as Wikipedia, it just admits it, which is preferable since it is easier to be aware of your bias if you actually take it into account.

Noo Wikipedia definitely does not have any systemic issues. Its not like its full of Nazis or zionist or power users. Oh wait all three of those are common "human interest" stories about the site.

The hivemind

🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

There is no such thing as a neutral point of view, if you have a brain capable of holding a point of view then you have a body that biases you towards your own survival, comfort and social connections.

Prolewiki is openly a pro-worker site, and wikipedia claims neutrality but in the practice is pro capitalist-imperialist. One is open and honest about its bias, the other is not.

Yes, something should be pro-labor class

In fact, it often gets worse one edit at a time

confuses you

Go fuck yourself

"Everyone capable of debunking my half-baked ideas about the world is an inhuman machine so I don't need to think about what they say."

They claim anything bad China does is a CIA plot, fuck sources.

How dare you expect them to have sources and proof!

It's funny how calling them out gets removed/banned but they aren't a echo chamber hivemind.

It's really telling that this got downvoted here. I'm amazed they didn't remove it, ban it, then snark on hexbear.

Facts are CIA propaganda, I guess?

Zionist propaganda is "facts" now apparently, according to our resident "anarchists"

here