ProleWiki
On July 18th, 2024, after almost a week of discussions, the editorship elected comrades [General_KJ](https://lemmygrad.ml/u/General_KJ) and [ulaan](https://lemmygrad.ml/u/420dengist) to the position of administrators with an unanimous 16 votes! The main reason for this is to fulfill demands of a growing project. This was an initiative of the founder admins, me and [Critical](https://lemmygrad.ml/u/CriticalResist8), and we brought the discussions to the editorship so we could elect members there. To me, personally, this is a great achievement. Years ago, when I first created ProleWiki, with my own money and labor, I promoted the project in Lemmygrad, sharing my thoughts on the development, issues, demands, etc. Though I was a bit more idealistic back then about the future of the project, I had a correct reasoning: > We hope that in about a year or so, ProleWiki is able to exist without me individually and becomes a valuable resource to revolutionaries from all over the world, socially owned by all contributors. It definitely took longer than a year 😂, but we managed to do that, and now even more so. We will be training the newly elected admins over time so that they can fulfill demands on every aspect of the project. That way, ProleWiki can be much more resilient against anything that may happen with an individual admin's personal life or health. Giving the CIA a harder time trying to shut us down 😁 Welcome, comrades [General_KJ](https://lemmygrad.ml/u/General_KJ) and [ulaan](https://lemmygrad.ml/u/420dengist)!
Recently, we started using a MediaWiki extension which helps us "moderate" edits coming from those who do not have accounts. This help us prevent spam and vandalism from ever reaching front pages, while allowing those who don't have accounts to contribute to collective knowledge.
Just like with Bakhmut, the pro-UA wikipedia editors couldn't bring themselves to write Russian victory. There were a lot of proposals to close off the article "Battle of Vuhledar" as a Ukrainian victory, and then write a new article "Vuhledar Offensive" where Russia won. The cope is unreal, but it looks like there are veteran Wikipedia editors who are sticklers for correctness and completeness and are not taking any shit. If you don't know, it took *several months* after Bakhmut fell for Wikipedia to reflect that. The cope was that no reputable sources said "Ukraine lost Bakhmut" and therefore it didn't happen, despite Russians moving past Bakhmut and assaulting villages to the West of it. [Talk page](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Bakhmut) Lots of threads are missing, there were at least a dozen discussing the issue of "Russian victory" back and forth. Is there an archive?
Some wild guesses in the comments, but generally higher than over on Twitter lol. The actual answer is **800** unique visitors every day! Congratulations to [@KrupskayaPraxis@lemmygrad.ml](https://lemmygrad.ml/u/KrupskayaPraxis) who came the closest at 700!
Not a trick question but a very interesting one to ask [Answer is here](https://lemmygrad.ml/post/5737966)
I know Saul Wenger and Wisconcom are the same guy since they are from Wisconsin Wisconcom could even be an alias Eddie from MWM uses
Many events and purges happened during this time Wisconcom and JucheGuevara would both get Purged and the split of ProleWiki and the Creation of the NazBol website InfraWiki the Start of Wincon Files and the start of the ProleWiki Book Club
The Last Edit on the main page was in April and some edits have been outdated for a year.
We're very open about our stats because we don't have anything to hide. In fact, openly publishing (curated) analytics about website visits is actually helpful to gauge the impact ProleWiki is having, where it's going, where it can improve and where it's expected to change, etc. Current stats on the English-language instance, which is by far the most lively: **On daily visits:** * around 1000 daily visits * this amounts to 30k visits per month! * Unique visits represent 2/3rds of the above figure, which means very few repeated visits _during the same month_. * \>100k pageviews per month * Comes out to around 3 pages viewed per visit (not necessarily homepage -> search -> final page) **On geographic provenance:** * Almost half (but below half) of all visits come from the USA, though virtually all countries of the world are represented over a yearly period. This makes sense as the English instance mostly interests English speakers, of which the USA is the most prominent country of origin on the Internet. * The only countries that did not originate any visits this year so far is the DPRK, Turkmenistan, Niger, Chad, Sudan, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Central African Republic, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea. 2 Asian countries and 8 African countries. Every other state/country/territory (we use a wider map than the 196 UN states) generated at least 1 visit this year. This is still only for the English-language instance. **On charting evolution:** Since we started tracking visits (anonymously and with non-proprietary, self-hosted software) some 695 days ago, we see an increase in daily visits by 1.09 per day. This seems low, but consider that: 1. We still register almost 1000 visits per day, the 1.09 figure is the durable increase over time. 2. It's a positive increase, meaning the website is becoming more popular regardless. 3. This amounts to 30 extra daily visits by the end of the month. By the end of 2024, if this trend continues, we would see a durable increase of 121 daily visits, going from 1000 to 1100 daily. * We finished 2023 on December 31st at 959 thousand pageviews. * We expect to reach 1 _million_ pageviews for the year in early October. * At this same rate, we will end 2024 with 1.163 million pageviews. * This is a 121% difference from 2023. **On the pages visited:** * Without surprise the most visited pages day after day are the index/homepage and the recent changes page. * After that, the most visited content pages generally revolve around patsocs. Pizza index has been popular recently because of Iran's retaliation. Whatifalthist is also a big one because he keeps saying dumb shit on Twitter. * This shouldn't be too surprising especially as these visits mostly come from Google searches. This means we rank generally well for these terms. * Overall, over 850 wiki pages are seen each day. These can be any content type: library books, plain wiki pages, special pages, categories, etc. * While many pages only register between 1 and 3 clicks per day (the vast majority of our pages in fact; over 80% of all visits go to those), these are still important: it's information that we were able to provide to readers that they otherwise wouldn't have read on ProleWiki! * We see that specific pages also receive interest which correlate with wider news. Claudia De la Cruz's page for example was a contender for top-visited for a few days in a row when she announced her candidacy for presidency of the USA. Hope you found this interesting.
   (yes I also wrote one lol) You can request an account here: https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Special:RequestAccount
The error message shows: ## Book rendering failed There was an error while attempting to render your book. ____ I was accessing the wiki using Firefox. I tried disabling uBlock Origin to see if it was the reason, but the same error was displayed. Didn't know where I should ask about this error, so shared it here.
Can a similar feature as was added for articles where edits can be suggested or typos flagged for review and approval be added to library entries as well? I understand that these are published texts, not wiki articles that should not typically be edited, but I've occasionally run across typos that I assume aren't from the original text. Things such as "the the." I'm not familiar with how these texts are uploaded, so it's possible they exist in the source text as well and should be left unaltered.
**A:** >Imperialism is the highest stage of the capitalist mode of production, in which monopolies and cartels become the prevalent economic force of society.[1] > >Lenin is often credited for having synthesized a Marxist analysis of imperialism with the publishing of his pamphlet Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism in 1916, most notably on the foundation of the earlier work of John A. Hobson entitled Imperialism: A Study. Beginning with the first paragraph of his pamphlet, Vladimir Lenin wrote that rapid growth of industry and concentration of production in growing enterprises represent the key characteristic of capitalism.[1] > >Multiple theorists have updated, deepened, developed or critically engaged with the classical analysis of Imperialism. Other theorists developed different conceptualisations, including most notably Kwame Nkrumah, remaining situated within the framework of scientific socialism. Most recently, the concept of neoimperialism has emerged in the work of Cheng Enfu. > >The development of imperialism in the global economy also reinforces a dialectical relationship between core-periphery countries, mainly dependency and subordination of underdeveloped countries to imperialist economies. In conjunction with these developments, new theoretical models were proposed to understand developments, such as dependency theory and world-systems theory. **B:** > Imperialism represents the highest stage of the capitalist mode of production, where monopolies and cartels dominate the economic landscape of society. > >Lenin is widely recognized for synthesizing a Marxist analysis of imperialism with the publication of his 1916 pamphlet, "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism." This work builds on John A. Hobson's earlier study, "Imperialism: A Study." Lenin begins his pamphlet by asserting that the rapid growth of industry and the concentration of production in expanding enterprises are key characteristics of capitalism. > >Numerous theorists have subsequently updated, expanded, and critically engaged with the classical analysis of imperialism. Notably, Kwame Nkrumah contributed significantly within the framework of scientific socialism. More recently, Cheng Enfu has introduced the concept of neoimperialism. > >The evolution of imperialism in the global economy reinforces a dialectical relationship between core and periphery countries, highlighting the dependency and subordination of underdeveloped nations to imperialist economies. This dynamic has led to the development of new theoretical models, such as dependency theory and world-systems theory, to better understand these global economic relationships. For the purpose of this question you can only choose between A or B. Please explain your reasoning.
If you didn't hear you can now edit ProleWiki without requiring an account, but you can't create pages that way. In this thread you can ask us to create pages for you and then with the anon edit feature, edit them yourself. To avoid your edits being rejected, please note that: * Your IP will be published if you edit anonymously, use a VPN or similar if you don't want that. * Read the [editing guidelines](https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/ProleWiki:Editorial_guidelines) and * Read our [Principles](https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/ProleWiki:Principles). * We also require every claim to be sourced in some way. We have citation templates that you should use and fill out as much as possible. As for requesting a page, please provide the title you want for it _spelled exactly how you want it_ as the wiki is case-sensitive. I'll probably do a look-over first anyway to see if we already have a page for it.
If you remember one week ago we rolled out a feature on ProleWiki so that any reader could edit without an account (we now call it anon editing internally). I've been keeping detailed stats on this feature for one week and to be honest I'm getting too tired of this to do it for another week, so here are the 1-week results that I'm gonna stop at: ``` **Contributions so far:** 28 sent in total, of which: 21 approved 7 rejected ------------------------ **Rejection reasons:** Sources issues (3) Possible wrecking attempt (1) Trolling (1) Duplicate edit (1) Null edit (1) already merged (1) ------------------------ ``` Note that these stats count each individual edit sent to the moderation queue as a different instance. For example, if a reader submits an edit that is rejected and then fixes the issues and resubmits, and the second one gets accepted, it will count as 1 rejection and 1 approval. However I didn't count edits that were approved and then undone, which allows us to notify the editor of the rejection reason through the changelog. These count as 1 rejection only until the user makes another contribution that's approved. I don't know if that makes sense. As you can see, we approved most edits (75% of them). The most common reason for rejecting was due to source issues of any kind (missing, incorrectly filled, not entirely filled, etc). We've had one troll (probably a liberal. Spoiler alert: it wasn't even a funny joke), one possible wrecking attempt that we preferred to reject, and otherwise the rest was just technical quirks. Null edits for example are when you commit an edit to the wiki, but without having changed anything. Yes, you can do that for some reason. I think it's a testing feature. I didn't keep logs for the approved contributions, but they were largely made by 2 users whom I believe had requested accounts in the past. Many contributions were very small in size (correcting typos or grammar, which is always appreciated), but some were also a bit lengthier -- one or two paragraphs worth. One reader asked for a page to be made on a video game (Crisis in the Kremlin) and filled it out despite not having an account. The longest contribution filled out the entirety of the page on the PRCF (Pole révolutionnaire communiste français), but unfortunately we had to reject it as it had very few sources. If sourcing applies to our editors it applies equally to our anon contributors! All contributions are valuable though, and it's great that we've had not only 21 in just one week (an average of 2.5 a day), but also that they were there at all! This is now content published on ProleWiki that we didn't have one week ago, so all contributions are valuable and appreciated. This pilot project also allowed us to gather some data and refine our relationship to anon edits. One thing I want to show the anon editors is the documents we send to every new editor before they start editing, so they can see what makes a good edit and how to make it. That way we could also avoid sourcing issues and overall fewer rejected contributions. Gonna have to think about how to do that. Being able to talk directly to the anon editors would be cool too, but no idea how we could make that possible. The system as a whole isn't really set up for that. Their best bet is to join our Discord, maybe we'd make a channel specifically for regular anon editors. Though at this stage you're probably better off just joining as an editor. ### What's next? We're totally going to keep the anon edit feature up. I can't guarantee we'll always go through them quickly and that we might not disconnect it sometimes for reasons, but it's becoming a permanent fixture of ProleWiki. We're hoping to be able to open it to the library and even to creating pages, but no word on that yet as it depends on what we are able to make this thing do. ### Should you still request an account Yes, you totally should! It gives you greater access to the community, no more moderation log, and allows you to participate in shaping ProleWiki's direction. But in the meantime, you can help share your knowledge without having to go through a long vetting process.
Read the release here that explains how this all works: [https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Essay:ProleWiki_is_allowing_its_readers_to_edit_pages!](https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Essay:ProleWiki_is_allowing_its_readers_to_edit_pages!) We'll be running this as a pilot project from 1 week to a month to collect data and assess the feature, and then either keep going with it or pause and reiterate. Feel free to ask questions --- some stats after the first weekend: 10 edits approved 5 edits rejected We log the reasons for rejections, and so far they are: Source issues (3) Possible wrecking attempt (1) Trolling (1) Duplicate edit (1) So only 3 real edits were rejected and 2 of those improperly sourced edits were fixed by their author afterwards. 1 was rejected literally just a few minutes ago so it’s still ongoing. Edits that were rejected and then approved once fixed count as 2 edits (1 rejected, 1 approved). Overall not so bad for the first weekend, definitely a good amount of proposed edits, 15 in total so far. We are also refining our stance towards anon edits with this pilot period, allowing us to understand how they can fit within our model and how we relate to them.
This was a while ago if you remember, we advertised a crit-self-crit form everywhere and collected submissions. and the reason we didn't publish the criticisms we received yet is because, to be honest, they were pretty tame! Which is pretty cool, it signals that our readers (and editors, as both were allowed to use the form) don't have deep problems with ProleWiki. We were also discussing the submissions with the editorship and the idea was to collect basically everyone's opinions on each submission, and then make a unified statement out of these. This is still in progress. In the non-editor submissions we note 2 reactionaries who just wanted to rant anonymously (real brave), and otherwise received the following: * let non-editors edit (we've looked into this before and are looking at possible solutions, but yes we were already aware) * making it easier to create an account, which can be interpreted in different ways. I assume they meant the vetting questionnaire, or at least included it in their request. Unfortunately we depend on this form only to decide whether to reject or approve an account request, so it has to be exhaustive. We're aware that this can turn away some users, at the same time, if you're going to be writing on an encyclopedia, writing a vetting form shouldn't be much of a hurdle. At least that's how we see it. But we're always thinking about ways to tweak it. * a couple requests to add or edit some pages. We can't really force the editors to write on stuff they don't want to (no mechanism for it that we want to enact). But I think we took care of one of the requests since it was a simple page edit? Idr entirely, it's been a bit. * someone just said "keep up the good work" thank you :) Mostly I was disappointed that our biggest detractors, anonymous people on Twitter and Discord speaking in the safety of their own community, did not show up in this form! We specifically made it anonymous and advertised it as far as we could, but like I said, all criticism was very tame -- as you can tell from the non-editor list above. Where were the maoists decrying us as dengists? The ultras decrying us as trotskyists? And the hoxhaists decrying us as revisionists? This was your chance to tell us to our face without repercussions!! I can only conclude that they actually don't care all that much and just want to rant. I did add some of the criticism I came across online myself here and there to the form just so the editors could discuss it, but it's not the same when someone has to relay the words versus the person actually explaining the issue in their own words. The editors were actually comparatively more incisive. Relatively speaking. They made up the bulk of the submissions and mostly wanted better tools to do their job more easily or had ideas to improve our processes. Still, like I said, they were comparatively more direct with us, knowing that this was gonna be shared with the entire editorship also. Some of the submissions (only the interesting ones and removing my own): * we don't check account requests in other instances (not that there are many) and sometimes a request might sit there for a month before we notice it. Definitely a problem. * Improving the discoverability of Library and Essays works, compared to "main" (wiki) pages. * Getting more people involved in agitprop work. * One editor criticized their performance, saying they're not as active as they'd like to be. * Figure out a way to make people who might not qualify for an account still be able to participate to some extent (that might have been mine, or not, I honestly don't remember) * Focusing more on the library (personally I feel it's really starting to look like something! But I would like to simplify it, what I feared would happen is starting to happen and it's starting to become difficult to navigate) * One editor made a whole host of suggestions that all follow each other, kinda difficult to summarize but basically all strategic-level plans for the long-term. * Someone suggested we make debate pages, there's even a plugin for this. This would allow people to hear both sides of a struggle session and make up their own mind following the arguments. * Moderate the discord more actively, which we've started doing. Some people start feeling too comfortable on that platform. * Make more obscure (or less famous let's say) content accessible, including writing pages on topics that are not necessarily being talked about. Like everyone has material on China for example (the problem is you have to know about these obscure topics T_T) * Organize weekly get-togethers in voice chats to work. Like a study group if you've been to college, but for working on the wiki. So like I said, comparatively more direct and deep, which is good. I would have loved for readers to open up more, but it's also good to see that editors feel comfortable enough to raise this (some even left their name despite not being required) We will probably open a more permanent crit-self-crit form and keep that one linked somewhere so people can more readily reach out; the one we opened for this session was closed after a month or two (I think it was 2) after submissions had stopped coming in, so we could review what we got so far. And remember, **you only have to fear self-crit if you have something to hide!**
I don’t understand why you support reform and opening up. In my opinion, reform and opening up is a sign of China’s transition from socialism to capitalism.
en.prolewiki.org
Just learned from a Cuban comrade on ProleWiki about this. I set out to translate the speech he linked me to, which you can find in the post URL. Will be updating Castro's page soon with this info, because I literally never heard of this before.
Hello there, comrades! A few ProleWiki editors are focusing their efforts to expand our articles on Laos. We're looking for sources to base our articles on, so that we'll have more material to work with. If you know anything, be it an article or a book, or a website, please, let us know! Your suggestions will help us refine our article on the country. Another thing, we're holding a book club on [*Revolution in Laos: Practice and Prospects*](https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Revolution_in_Laos), which does a good job on detailing the history of the country and its revolutionary movement, which we can all learn from to apply to our revolutionary tactics (though not strategy). If you're interested in doing this reading with us, join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/UuRUvVFBkY) and let us know you're from Lemmygrad and you're there to join the book club, and we'll put you right in as a book club member! Thank you!
ProleWiki's library is looking to add more writings _by_ the Palestinian Resistance, both current and old (PLO, Hamas, PFLP, etc). We are, in the first phase (and as is our habit), collecting as much as we can in one place, and then will go through the data. If you have any writings/texts/books/pamphlets, etc, basically any **written material** by the Resistance, we are very happy to collect it! Please format your submissions like this: **Title (author) type link** (if you are able to find a link online, which is much faster for us as we'll have to source the document somehow to upload it. Look on websites like anna's archive, scihub, etc). The writings don't have to be in English necessarily, they can be in Arabic. We'll try to find a way to translate them.
Basically you can submit your criticism (even as readers of the wiki) and we'll collect it, organize it, and go through it at a later date to be defined. You don't have to be an editor, but this pre-supposes a minimum amount of familiarity with ProleWiki. If you've never heard of it before it's as simple as visiting the website and logging what you notice in the form. The feedback is anonymous so don't worry about being too harsh or anything, it's good that we hear it. You can also add a way to reach you in the form if we need to. Link: https://framaforms.org/criticism-and-self-criticism-form-1713272254
fa.prolewiki.org
Hello, comrades! I'm here again to proudly announce that we've established a Persian language ProleWiki, managed and developed by our Iranian comrades [@sudo_halt@lemmygrad.ml](https://lemmygrad.ml/u/sudo_halt) and TheSinnerOne. Their selfless contributions are a testament to the unwavering dedication and perseverance of our comrades in delivering a service to the international proletariat. The expansion of our encyclopedia into Persian not only signifies the growing reach of our revolutionary knowledge but also symbolizes the unity and solidarity of comrades across languages, and cultures. And to think ProleWiki started with only myself in September 2020... And now we're spanning and delivering content up to 8 different languages, with editors from all over the world! It reminds me of an excerpt of Pablo Neruda's poem, *To my party*, which I will highlight: > You have given me fraternity towards those I do not know. \ You have added to me the strength of all who live. \ You have given me again the homeland as in a birth. \ You have given me the freedom that the solitary does not have. \ You taught me to kindle kindness, like fire. \ You gave me the righteousness that the tree needs. \ You taught me to see the unity and difference of men. \ You showed me how the pain of one being has died in the victory of all. \ You taught me to sleep in the hard beds of my brothers. \ You made me build on reality as on a rock. \ You made me the adversary of the wicked and the wall of the frantic. \ You made me see the clarity of the world and the possibility of joy. \ **You have made me indestructible because with you I do not end in myself.** And indeed, ProleWiki did not end in myself! Long live the international collaboration between comrades!
el.prolewiki.org
With the help of our comrade Syntrofos, we have opened a Greek language ProleWiki! Of course, since we have just opened it, you shouldn't expect to find much, except an article on [Marxism-Leninism](https://el.prolewiki.org/wiki/%CE%9C%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%BE%CE%B9%CF%83%CE%BC%CF%8C%CF%82-%CE%9B%CE%B5%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BD%CE%B9%CF%83%CE%BC%CF%8C%CF%82) at the moment. Irrespective of that, having an open Greek wiki will allow people speaking that language to contribute with the wiki independent of the English language instance. Our editors have done an excellent job in ProleWiki, but it's a job that is never really finished. There will always be something to add, a fact, a specific knowledge, and it's wonderful that we are opening up to further languages so more people from more places can know about our project and contribute to them. All glory to the comrades at ProleWiki! Thank you comrade Syntrofos for your work!
Important: This article could just be an outlier. I haven't looked into many other articles on the site. I'm also not a writer of articles, just a reader. I respect the work of the ProleWiki writers and even this article is a good one. I might come off as harsh here, but I believe that the information itself in the article is good. **Edit:** user ledlecreeper27 pointed out that the piece of text I am talking about was copied from RationalWiki when ProleWiki was new. This information adds very important context. I hope (and somewhat believe) that the criticism I provided can still be of value and use. Some time ago I decided to look at ProleWiki (I haven't ever really looked at it) and I stumbled upon [the article on LGBT+](https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/LGBT+), which made me a bit confused. The article has [a section for refuting myths about homosexuality](https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/LGBT+#Refuting_myths_about_homosexuality) which employs very impartial, informal, and argumentative language. While the idea behind the section itself isn't bad at all (although the title of the section also is quite partial, something like "misconceptions about homosexuality" would sound more "official"), the language just comes off as a personal blog post more than a wiki page. It's like a bullet point list of arguments with language like "That is a slippery slope fallacious argument; in other words, bulls##t." (My censorship) I'm not trying to argue that you should be respectful towards homophobes. My problem is that the language that's used in the article makes it read less like a trustworthy source of information and more like just some person on the internet arguing. I think that impartial and formal language would make the information on the site seem a lot more reliable. Also less focus on presenting arguments and more on just presenting information would go a long way in making the articles seem (and be) more informational. All of the information in the arguments can be represented in a more impartial way, which would probably not only make the article more dense in information, but also make the arguments more convincing (but making the arguments more convincing isn't the most important thing here, unless... read the next paragraph). But here's the important thing to note: all of what I wrote is assuming that the site is trying to be a reliable source of information, and similar to sites like Wikipedia. If the site is meant to just be some communists presenting arguments it's fine... kind of. I believe that impartial language actually makes an argument seem more convincing. I avoid using the term "objective language" and opt for "impartial" instead, because I think that it is disingenuous to claim that your writing is objective. To me, impartial doesn't really mean that the idea is being represented in some centrist manner, just that the text attempts to sound neutral by avoiding for example calling things "stupid". I guess I'm just talking about formal language.
It's coming out early next week. Possibly even Sunday. You'll want to read it. Every communist will.
I requested an account but there seems to be a bug on the confirm email page that doesn't let me verify it. [c14434ff2e814adea7645edb] /index.php?title=Special:RequestAccount&action=confirmemail&wpEmailToken=[TOKEN] Error: Call to undefined method MediaWiki\User\User::getGroupsWithPermission() Am I doing something wrong?
Any article that I try to read will throw an error about that there is no text
ProleWiki
!prolewiki@lemmygrad.mlProleWiki
A community related to the ProleWiki project.
Post in this community to request articles, provide suggestions and discuss ways to develop our project