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 and
• Read our 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!

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.

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, 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 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

Hello, comrades!

I'm here again to proudly announce that we've established a Persian language ProleWiki, managed and developed by our Iranian comrades @[email protected] 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!

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 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+, which made me a bit confused. The article has a section for 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?

I really wanna hear what I should improve and things I should add

Any article that I try to read will throw an error about that there is no text

Special thanks to comrades @[email protected], @[email protected] and @[email protected]. Your patience and assistance were honorable

Right now, registration is closed and probably will continue to be closed for a while. Only editors can choose to have an account with the ProleWiki handle.

Now for step two: implementing a matrix-discord bridge. May take me a while 🥲

This has been a goal for two years, and we have finally achieved it today.

Even better, you can add up to 500 pages (including library works or essays) to a collection, and download it all as one PDF 'book'.

To get started, go on the homepage (https://en.prolewiki.org/) and open the megamenu, then click on "Create book" and follow the instructions.

We're still ironing out some hiccups, but I can't tell you how happy I am that this works! Guess who's celebrating tonight 😎

We can no longer ignore there are Matrix users among our editorship, who prefer it over Discord for various reasons, some being they had to use VPN, they prefer Matrix for privacy and security, or simply because they hate Discord for some reason

There's also the problem our organization is currently intrinsically tied with Discord. So if we ever "found" to "break the rules" of the "community guidelines," which is always a bullshit excuse for censorship, we will face a major setback in our organization before we re-organize ourselves more autonomously.

Having a Matrix server and channels neatly organized can be a safe backup from such a setback, but the major reason we (and by this I mean mostly myself) are currently researching into implementing a Matrix server, is to host a bridge which would allow seamless communication between our Matrix and Discord members

Comrade @[email protected] from GenZedong has generously offered support in implementing the server, but neither of us knew how to configure the Apache webserver, which is the stack used by ProleWiki, and I'm currently stuck figuring this out. She has also set up a Matrix-Discord bridge herself for us to use, but it's safer for us to host one ourselves, to avoid leaving the server dependent on other servers.

Instead of requesting for a single person, anyone willing to help, please do so in the comments, and I'll answer you. I will share some information about our server configuration in the process, and since any conversation here is public, try not to ask any sensitive information.

I think this way more people can chime in and help us out, I've been having headaches with this 🥲

Edit: Thanks for all the responses, I didn't expect we had so many webdevs here lol. To complete the brief, the first thing we'll need to do I think is upgrade the PHP which is on an EOL version. What we are looking for is someone who shows initiative, it's how we work at ProleWiki from the admins down to the newest editors. You'll be able and encouraged to come up with your own solutions, ours may of course not be the best we could get. Our keywords are scalability, maintenance, and optimization, always to better serve the readers.

We have tons of ideas for the future, but every time we find a developer, either they don't know PHP (I can't blame them) or they bail.

I'm looking for a PHP dev who wants to help out with ProleWiki. We have tons of cool ideas to really bring this show on the road, but nobody to put them into action.

Can't guarantee we can pay you (and if we can believe me it won't be a wage), but you get tons of perks such as being part of a cool, chill, growing community, a project bigger than any of us, and I can even write you a letter of recommendation I don't mind.

As we look towards the future and where ProleWiki can grow and better serve its readers, we come to the conclusion we need more tech. And for that we need at least one PHP dev.

ProleWiki runs on MediaWiki and a VPS. We're thinking of getting an S3 bucket as that seems more and more needed every day (it's just our processes make acquiring stuff a bit slow). One thing I would want to optimize for example is image delivery.

If you're interested hit me up.

One or two chapters left.

So, I was reading the article on the PSL and I noticed that there "Controversy" section had a different bias compared to the rest of the article. The article on Maupin also has an anti-PSL bias. Can ProleWiki come to a consensus on the PSL rather than having competing biases on the PSL article?

Or see it in action ->> https://prolewiki.org/

I feel it's better than the old one for sure, but that it's still missing something. Just not sure what.

Hey comrades,

We need your help for a quick focus group test to shape a new policy we've rolled out.

We're chasing out sourceless edits (see here for info), and we have a question on how much we should reuse a given reference now. It's now become a discussion and I figure it's better to see what the readers prefer to base our policy on.

Please look at these two edits of the same page, the "Post-Premiership" section specifically.

Please take the time to read through the section in version 1 first (it's just one paragraph), and only afterwards open version 2.

Version 1: https://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Boris_Johnson&oldid=61998

Version 2: https://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Boris_Johnson&oldid=62000

If you can't see a difference, please also tell me (everything you have to say is valuable feedback). But the difference is that in version 1, reference 4 is only used at the end of the entire paragraph to source all the claims in the paragraph, whereas in version 2, every claim has been linked to the admittedly same reference (number 4).

As a reader, which method do you prefer and why?

Also please note that every time we reuse a reference, it shows like this in the References list:

Does this bother you, did you notice it before I brought it up?

Again, add as much as you want in your answer. It will help us decide how to source in the future.

edit: please make a comment and don't just upvote by the way if you agree with someone! The more feedback we have the more we can refine our policy too, everything is good to hear. Thanks!