Though I don't like some of the questions

wow..they aren't even subtle about it @pratel

@ExceptionalFeather

See comment 5 above.

To elaborate a bit. The cultural Marxism as an intellectual source derives from some very specific names: Foucalt being a key figure (who is widely cited in the humanities). Separating speech that "liberates" from speech that "oppresses"

Why can't I find the page on wikipedia

Is it removed?

Mostly, it seems they moved it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory

The basic structure follows the latter version.

Let me put it this way, how much of wikipedia would you say is reliable?

Most of the STEM stuff is pretty good

Historical events are pretty well documented

The politics section is a mess

The entertainment section is pretty good

Actually make that 85%

@ExceptionalFeather everything that is easily verified. Or where people wouldn't have clear agendas Like most of physics (the controversial stuff is mostly so high-level wikipedia isn't appropriate to start with)

Anything in Math is another good example.

Most of Geography up until you enter stuff like politics.

It's when you move into stuff like politics or some businesses that things get more sketchy.

On politics would an encyclopedia be better?

Yeah tbh

Unfortunately, I don't have a good answer.

Wiki killed most of the good encyclopedias I know of.

Or made them subscription.

Oooh imagine this

An encyclopedia website about political figures and ideologies

There will be a political compass with a movable dot on the homepage

And you can move it to wherever and read about the history of where you lean and stuff

It'll be so cool

I could try making it but I don't know where to get objective info and I'm not very good at writing

So this would be curated and written by a couple writers?

Yeah

And people can suggest edits which the writers can review

Traditionally, encyclopedias were made by looking for underpaid university faculty and paying them to write the article.

But those guys won't be objective

Like, they'll describe communism "A movement for the liberation of workers"

The editors are (in theory) supposed to look for people who would be objective or well positioned to talk about things from a sufficiently sophisticated viewpoint.

You know what I would love

I would love to get a bunch of quora writers

Matthew Bates, John Cate

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2015/01/20/wikipedia-or-encyclopaedia-britannica-which-has-more-bias/#dbe43527d4ab

Habib Fanny, Jon Davis

They tend to be very objective

And represent both sides as honestly as possible

I'd say Ernest Adams but he's a cuck