Message from @Deleted User
Discord ID: 469026079819038721
@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
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
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
The number of revisions required to start showing this effect, however, is quite large—at least 2,000 edits—and the articles most read by users aren't necessarily those most revised by editors. "To some extent, we are not seeing the scenario where too many cooks spoil the broth, we are mostly seeing an insufficient number of cooks," says Zhu.
If Wikipedia would like to improve its objectivity, Zhu recommends that it encourage editors to revise the most-read stories first, as well as encouraging people with different political leanings to edit the same article.