Did you ever write an article for Wikipedia?
Have you ever vandalized Wikipedia?
>>8069250
Not an article, added a factoid to a AFI list page.
>>8069256
Who doesn't?
>>8069250
One time I corrected a word and was happy for a week, felt like I was giving something back to the community y'know
>>8069250
kek no, leave that shit to the poindexters
Yeah I like to blank Justin Bieber's page and remove inappropriate images like the one on 'footjob'.
>>8069250
You could say I did :^)
>>8070088
Fuuuuuck you.
I correct grammar or orthography from time to time, but I ain't doing anything else.
>>8070088
>Oh no! People who disagree with me are editing my conspiracy theories! :^(
>>8070088
>"Cultural Marxism"
Intersectionality has about as much of marx as neoconservatism has trotsky.
Seriously, take the time to read anything, even very brief introductions to the two, that does not merely confirm your bias. It's nowhere near difficult to see intersectionality is incompatible with marxist thought
>accused of politically motivated pseudo-scholarship and deleted for it
>de facto evidence wikipedia lefties are engaged in politically motivated pseudo-scholarship
Yeah, I made a bunch of articles for various fish you can catch in australian rivers. That must have been over 10 years ago now.
>>8069250
A few for obscure authors who write in languages other than English. Mostly just translate the articles from other languages for the English site.
>>8069250
I tried to edit an etymology in an article with sources and left a little comment and all that, and got in return a rant from some two bit math professor on how this one 19th century article undermined any and all other research since and everything that wasn't his thing was "folk etymology". I checked the article and talk a few years later and I must have started some shit because there were years and years of this guy arguing with people over this one thing. And then a few years later a number of etymologies were added.
Put me off ever editing anything again tho.
>>8071173
Just checked it again and it's now spawned a whole extra wikipedia page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proposed_etymologies_of_OK
Did you ever write a book with Wikipedia article snipet posts on 4chan?
I edited a poorly written DBZ episode description of my favorite episode, and some asshole change it back literally minutes later and basically told me to fuck off because he maintains that page.
>>8069250
Back in 2011, I integrated some obvious falsities in the article about Bismarck. It's still in there.
I've written articles for several species of psilocybin mushrooms
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy
I wrote the Gamergate page. It was literally sexist drivel that hide behind "journalism ethics" before.
I can only read so many books from an author before feeling guilty I didn't make them a wiki page
though the place has an overall shitty culture and tends to favor completely irrelevant people who market themselves in the media over little-known artists
>>8071256
Could make a classic
>>8071446
So many books...
>>8070255
The idea of Cultural Marxism was (and is) logically sound; the only flaw was that it implied a conscious/organized conspiracy.
Also, are you seriously denying the political censorship that goes on in Wikipedia's more 'sensitive' articles?
Luckily, some of us are smart enough to have the originals saved:
https://archive.today/YzkIS
>"We are, in Marx's terms, "an ensemble of social relations" and we live our lives at the core of the intersection of a number of unequal social relations based on hierarchically interrelated structures which, together, define the historical specificity of the capitalist modes of production and reproduction and underlay their observable manifestations.” — Martha E. Gimenez, Marxism and Class, Gender and Race: Rethinking the Trilogy
When I was like 13 I made a few pages for metal bands. A few years ago I made a page for the band The World is a Beautiful Place & I Am No Longer Afraid to Die. That's about it.
>>8071488
>Third wave post-rock
>>8071476
There's a clear line tracing from "permanent revolution" and "socialist internationalism" through "the end of history" and onto "let's topple Saddam," but their connections are tenuous and center on style over substance. It pretty much stops at "Know who ELSE wanted country-by-country revolutions to a final system of organization?"
This is the case with critical theory. When you try to work out and fill in the perceived incompleteness of purely Marxist theory by inviting in new frameworks to describe the "superstructure" of society without direct recourse to class and property relations and in so doing denounce "scientism," you have decisively broken from both class reductionism and historical materialism. You can certainly CALL yourself a Marxist thereafter, and place a claim on his intellectual legacy, even and especially as a propaganda effort if you believe such anti-materialist drivel as the truth being a collaborative endeavor.
Practically speaking, intersectionalist thought has been nothing but a device of class rule.
The quote, ironically, is illustrative of their semi-total rejection of Marxist foundations and intent on creating a shiny new (nominally) anticapitalist zeitgeist for a new era. "Rethinking the Trilogy"?
>are you seriously denying the political censorship
No, I'm aware of it, especially since gamergate. Large parts seem copypasted directly from irrationalwiki at times. What I'm saying is in the fight against this sort of ideological censorship it is important not to kowtow to genuinely poor scholarship, accuse its just treatment of the genuine censorship we oppose, and let it hence cheapen our brand.
>>8069250
I have created like 1184 articles up to now.
