No.480458
We are Leftypedia, a socialist and left-wing online encyclopedia.
If you’re a leftist of any kind or considering becoming one, you’ve probably found truthful information about socialist ideologies and movements from websites like Wikipedia lacking at best.
These days, genuine leftist ideology can be hard to get into and learn about, between the toxic culture that dominates online leftist spaces and the many issues faced by even offline socialist organizations. Reading theory-dense works from Marx can be hard at first, and the easily-accessible guides targeted at beginners often don’t even understand the work their talking about themselves!
So, what’s the solution?
A dedicated socialist resource, like Leftypedia.
We aspire for new leftists to be given an environment where original discourse is encouraged on top of sourced and informative encyclopedic articles
Since our beginning in 2019, we have hundreds of articles, dozens of editors, and a growing community and base of content.
We’re well on our way of reaching our goals, and welcome any leftist or incoming-leftist to view and editor our articles, carry out original discourse, and so on!
Website:
wiki.leftypol.org
>>
No.480460
>>480458seems interesting, might check it out
>>
No.480474
I said it before and I'll say it again: what have you done to correct Wikipedia's and other wikis' fundamentally flawed self-governance structure? How are you going to avoid eventually become another embarrassing rationalwiki or conservapedia?
>>
No.481845
>>480474they kept everyone from editing recently and now moderate every edit
they also mass import Wikipedia content, use Wikipedia rules to disqualify content, and more or less just want to make an extension of Wikipedia
They also are a result of a prior failed leftypedia and are just borrowing server space as they say they have no interest in being a leftypol wiki
think it's run by a couple prolewiki people
>>
No.481864
>>481845So how do you do a collective knowledge repository thing correctly ?
>>
No.481865
>>481845>>481864I wanna know too
>>
No.481866
>>481845what a conspiracy theory, mark