Is it true?

Isn't this what right-wingers always say? That not all humans are equal?
Some people have more social power than other, and there is little chance this will ever change. Even under socialism (and even communism!) there will still be the inherent differences and inequalities between different individuals. The difference is that those unbalances of power won't be institutionalized, and won't be tied to material well-being.

Remember when they were struggling for funds, I wonder who gets wikipedia money right now since that problem never returned.

>circumcised yammering continues

And also, I would rather have Wikipedia's socialist model of user-managed content (even if some users battle with their e-peens) than the draconian systems of other websites where critical decisions are made by the unaccountable and opaque whims of corporate boardrooms and owners (e.g. YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, hell even Jow Forums!)

yes, in a post scarcity world like the internet

in information sharing, perhaps
as an economical institution? no
this article is pure propaganda and judging by your flag, I have reason to believe that my suspicions are true

>as an economical institution? no
why not?

I'm not sure if you're having difficulty with your english or are stupid. Power imbalances aren't instiutionalized under socialism? Seriously could you expound on what youbmean by that

then Wikipedia should scrap their neutral POV policy, because their core editors don't follow it at all. certain high-ranking editors get to dictate what sources are approved and not, and are effectively gatekeepers. Wikipedia is a liberal circlejerk site

Wikipedia is proof that voluntarism could work.

Socialism doesn't mix well with certain things. Things like people being allowed to say no.

because I don't wish to be force-fed ideologies from other continents in the world

I don't think: socialism = sharing economy

But whatever.

Attached: 1441526483823.jpg (864x1536, 269K)

Nigga wikipedia is an example or liberatarianism

How wikipedia is a socialism?

Wikipedia like the NFL or any other entity that shares revenue or gets donations does not operate within a vaccume. They are able to exist because capitalism

information is infinite resource so its inherently different from any other resources
but if we talk about only information i agree, copyrights are artificial barriers slowing our progress

the idea of wikipedia is libertarianism, yes
but actual wikipedia is more like mafia style "highest bidder" and intimidation tactics

The basic principle of socialism is the democratization of life. For there to be meaningful democracy, there are two base conditions: That people have a say in decisions that impact their lives, and that the weight of that "say" is proportional to the magnitude of that impact.
That certain people are just naturally stronger or smarter or more charismatic than others is all well and good, but to uphold democracy, the stronger people cannot turn around and use thier natural advantage to exert power over weaker individuals. That's what it means to "institutionalize imbalances of power": For the smart/stronger/faster/popular people to use their talents to rob others of their say over decisions that impact their lives, even partially.

In simpler words, for the strong to coerce the weak.

“Right wingers” are saying what reality is. It doesn’t matter what society you’re in. Some have more power than others, regardless. Except with socialism most people can’t buy food.

Wikipedia isn't a government funded organization is it? Wouldn't it have to be a government controlled organization and not a nonprofit organization (Wikimedia Foundation) to be considered a successful practice of socialism?

>democracy
tell netanyahu to tear down your wall then

wikipedia is much closer to a true "community service" than any other real life example

Attached: Based Orwell Poster.jpg (1024x1024, 643K)

"Wikipedia" can't do anything. It's the users who decide.

Libertarian socialism, yes.

>The basic principle of socialism is the democratization of life
the fuck are you talking about?
you can have socialism without democracy at all

>it's the users who decide
lies
it's whoever bitches or pays the most

No?
That's the ameritard understanding of "socialism".

>ameritard
looking down upon us now?
typical

You literally can't. Even by the narrowest honest definition, socialism is economic democracy.

This makes the most sense. Out of all posts in this thread, I think the country that practiced socialism/communism in the past would understand this situation best.

Socialism in essence is "some services are rights"
It can be governmentally done or voluntary, it \s not as important

Russia never actually practiced socialism, much less communism.

PROTIP: Orwell was a socialist.

Attached: bacon.jpg (2834x2230, 1.64M)

Ah, I completely understand now. Wouldn't their service of providing free and open knowledge to the general public be considered a practice of socialism then?

I understand that and I still read Orwell. Socialism in theory is at least in my mind much better than late stage capitalism.

fuck u now im hungry

What is voluntary contribution?

Socialism in practice is also much better, as seen in the example of Wikipedia.

Lmao. EVERY socialist regime engaged in mass murder and was authoritarian you dumbfuck kike

>I still read Orwell
also lol@this
Having read The Very Very Bad Dictatorship and Trotskyite Tales of Totalitarian Pigs is not "reading Orwell".
Just read The Road to Wigan Pier. It's beautiful and so much better than his crappy brainlet-pandering fiction. It's honestly a major part of made me a leftist.

>"a database website built on corruption that you cannot source for any research is a good example of socialism"
who the fuck are you trying to fool?

Hmmm... So.... you could almost say that... uh... (TRIGGER WARNING) it wasn't REALLY socialism, was it now?

The problem is, what services would/should be considered rights? I mean, for profit healthcare and education has been destroying the livelihood of the average American so much that there are many who can't find it possible to live the life they should be allowed to live due to crippling debt preventing them from having a home and starting a family.

The basic democracy model of wikipedia, for all its flaws, is still miles better than any hierarchical internet platform.

>NOT REALY SOCIALISM
Equality of outcome does not work faggot. Your shitty pipe-dream has never been a reality. Smarter and stronger people should absolutely have more weight in decisions than a mentally retarded nigger. To argue otherwise is why your dumbfuck ideology fails every time.

Attached: 1488586671712.png (644x598, 120K)

I'll admit I haven't read enough Orwell but I've read 1984 and Burmese Days and aim to read more as his melancholic tone speaks to me

Every time
lmao @ your pipe dream. utopian fantasy.

when you're on the side that holds the editing power, maybe. but that's not democracy at all

I guess my question is, what are 'rights' and what are 'luxuries?' Is a home a luxury? How about continuing education? Healthcare? Is having a family a right?

woah what a beautiful thought-salad you've got there
let's try to separate it to its basic ingredients to try and make sense of it!

>Equality of outcome does not work faggot
"Equality of outcome" as opposed to what, exactly? "Equality of opportunity"?
Had you bothered thinking about these concepts for more than two fucking seconds you would've realized how nonsensical they are. Today's "outcome" is tomorrow's "opportunity". If you found 100$ out on the street a minute ago, it means the rest of your day (and, really, your life) has the "opportunities" afforded by an extra 100$.
It's a false dichotomy and a absurd concept that has no rational standing.

>Smarter and stronger people should absolutely have more weight in decisions than a mentally retarded nigger
Well... Yes. That is a descriptive statement, but not a normative one.
A society where this statement is NOT true is one where socialist principles are applied.

It's the encyclopedia ANYONE can edit, buddy.

>for profit healthcare and education has been destroying the livelihood of the average American
wrong. government intervention did this. Ever wonder why a company can't just calculate how much insuring, say, your big toe should cost and sell it to you to undercut their expensive competition? Because it's not legal to do, because government regulations. Ever wonder why college became a 4 year proxy for a quick IQ test? Because the SCOTUS ruled that you couldn't give blanket IQ tests for a job because a black man sued a company when he noticed black were doing worse. Ever wonder why schools keep charging more money? Because the government hands out loans when the schools jack-up the price.
We know that someone would offer services like medical care and education at the "real" cost if they were allowed to. In many cases that cost is 0 dollars (see unlimited free education resources from the smartest professors on earth on YouTube). It's the government regulations that make true knowledge secondary to arbitrary credits.

>What if Facebook’s terms of service, its newsfeed algorithms, its features and options, were all determined through the deliberation of users themselves? You might think this would be a disaster; many people fear democracy and think rule by philosopher-kings is preferable. I think the problems of Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Amazon, contrasted with the success of Wikipedia, show that the opposite is true. It’s rule by kings that is the disaster, because kings never actually understand what’s good for the community as well as the community itself does.
But ordinary users don't determine any of that for Wikipedia, they just write/edit the text. And that's for an organization that has the luxury of being not-for-profit because it employs so few people and doesn't operate in physical space, unlike Amazon.

>Isn't this what right-wingers always say? That not all humans are equal?
The joke of it is that the lefties pretend they have no hierarchy and that Wikipedia is based around consensus building but in practice the majority of articles are controlled by unelected moderators with veto rights, as well as a strict system of automated checks that prevent vandalism. Said checks are not written by the community (i.e. they are fundamentally authoritarian). Right wingers endorse hierarchy and think the feigned egalitarianism of liberalism and socialism is untenable, for various reasons.

Just look at the circular answers the runaway lampshade is giving. That's all you need to know.

Isn't Wikipedia run by a collection of edit guilds/mafias that guard articles they are biased for/against?

Well, their censorship does look like socialism

As always, the answer to the problems caused by capitalism is always more capitalism.

Then why have the government regulations in the first place if they do nothing but damage the system?

But only a handful have a final say, and they beg for pocket change like a goddamn crackhead. You're so full of shit.

Every time I tried to edit something on Wikipedia it got removed by some leftist-extremists liberal telling me that facts were offensive.
Never use it anymore, hope they die of begging for donations with 800x1600 pop-ups.

youtube.com/watch?v=Vqhi16iikxk

Attached: 1541288760396.gif (200x200, 382K)

Uh...

Attached: Clip.png (1248x230, 96K)

I can see that, this is why I'm moving towards a Socratic type of questioning. No doubt there are fundamentally large issues plaguing our society and if the answers were easy, then we wouldn't have problems.

Sorry buddy, but facts dont care about your feelings :^)

Wikipedia is volunteerism. No one put the force of a State behind developing it. Anyone that thinks Wiki is socialism doesn’t understand wiki nor socialism.

the very opposite - wikipedia and any opensource are only possible due to capitalism - people are wealthy enough and have surplus resources to voluntary contribute to free community projects

I think the one who doesn't understand socialism here is you.

>Oh hey, look, these volunteers are all working together!
>Let's forcefully require that everyone act this way. And in our own interest!
This is why I can never take socialists seriously. They genuinely mistake mandate as charity. Concepts like intrinsic drive are completely alien to them.

Attached: 1498451365755.jpg (735x551, 55K)

But "anyone" can still edit it?

No, socialism is providing by community to the members of community a service as a basic right
How its done(through government or voluntarism), what services are provided(something which majority of population thinks it needs or something someone in the specific position decided based on some method) is just speicifics and can be freely changed while the essence of it being socialism will stay the same

Yes!

they shouldn't have them. The reason such laws exist is because laws are not written by "lawmakers". Laws are written by teams of lobbyists that then presents the laws to congressmen along with some money. The truth is that the government could never "write" a proper bill related to something like healthcare because the only people that would be writing it would be the people that work for the healthcare companies (this already happened). The ability for the government to regulate what you buy and how you buy it in the first black hands over power to companies that they shouldn't have. But big government types think that the NEXT regulation will fix everything. WHO is writing the next regulation?

It's impossible to get what you want. I find the best is to just discuss openly in front of them how fucked up they are as if they're not there.
see: He's an emotionally stunted worm who's spectrum runs quite like:
>slightly bored
>punchable smugness
>existential paranoia

If you can find a point he has other than "protect Wiki", that's your deal, I guess.

"Intrinsic drive" is completely alien to capitalists, who believe that if you don't threaten to punish people with starvation and homelessness they not work.

Did you not see the icon for semi-protected?

>Wikipedia getting more criticism over the years and becoming less trustworthy
Retards: This is excellent. We should make an entire society out of it.

Attached: coincidence.png (2648x1476, 1.46M)

people donating 2$ whenever they choose to give a fuck is socialism?

*in the first place

That's only if you think (((libertarians))) are conservatives. Your whole shit falls apart if it's regarded as a trojan horse meant to sway soft-rightists.

It is, thats exactly why i called it the best example of free community(voluntary) service we have in real life
Information being an infinite resource makes it so much easier, but it can happen with material resources/services too, its just much harder and providers(volunteers/government) will need to dedicate more resources than just time for it

all wikipedia poves is that the jews subvert everything

i see the hirschfeld thing gets traction
spread the redpill that the jews started this hirschfeld was not an ounce german all jewish

You can't say all laws are there to support back handed deals between corporations, lobbyists, and politicians. Who or where would you go to in an unregulated government if you were a victim of medical malpractice?

I get that but I feel these are questions that need answers

There was an account that got busted in the last 2 years that was posting 24/7. It’s believed that a foundation was behind the account, trying to shape views.

>"Intrinsic drive" is completely alien to capitalists
No, capitalists have a pretty firm understanding of what charity is.

>who believe that if you don't threaten to punish people with starvation and homelessness they not work.
No one is "punishing" you with starvation and homelessness. You are entitled to neither food nor shelter.

>constantly begging for money and barely functional partisan garbage that academics can't and won't accept as a legitimate source because it's ridden with issues.
no it is not