Wikipedia is extremely unreliable and biased, and not even on political topics, even linguistical and scientific articles are prone to huge issues. (see: Scottish Gaelic) If you wish to call prolewiki as biased, I must tell you that wikipedia is even worse, it just has a more liberal bias. Follow their sources and you will see. ProleWiki discloses the bias up front, and has an squad of source patrollers who make sure when a claim is made, it is grounded in reality that can be sourced. Sure, there aren't that many articles on it yet, but we strive to set a high standard because the slightest weak link in the project will be used by people like yourself to discredit us.

Disclaimer: I am a ProleWiki contributor.

[+] mellowheat@suppo.fi -8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

So you're aiming at truth, not communistic propaganda? I'm wondering why you/they choose to call it ProleWiki.

Was what I quoted up there a weak link? It's on the footer of every page.

[–] AMDIsOurLord@lemmy.ml 11 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

why you choose to call it ProleWiki.

Because it's the wiki of the people instead of the wiki of bourgeoisie interests, why the fuck else

Communistic propaganda

lol, and you think the slop you've seen your entire life has been absolutely unbiased? We do analyze matters though the lens of marxism-lenninism, we make sure our sources and research is decent, and if that's "communist propaganda" to you well, your loss lmao. But I have a hard time to take criticism from people who believe Adrian Zenz on anything

[–] mellowheat@suppo.fi -2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

But I have a hard time to take criticism from people who believe Adrian Zenz on anything

That wasn't me though, I just barged into this conversation to talk about our perceptions and definitions of truth in these online encyclopedias more so than about Uyghurs.

Personally, I'm not quite sold on the Uyghur narrative on either side but I also haven't looked into it a lot.

lol, and you think the slop you’ve seen your entire life has been absolutely unbiased?

Yeah, nothing is (which includes Marxist-Leninism), but I unfortunately don't have the time and resources to not trust something.

[–] AMDIsOurLord@lemmy.ml 11 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

not trust something.

Well, You absolutely can, since it actually saves you time. Otherwise you'd go and listen to Fox News slop as well

Uyghur narrative

There really isn't much information even provided by the proponents of the genocide theory, for example their supposed police database leak that was going to be irrefutable evidence... it was fake. It had AI pictures and pictures of public figures. They did some political circus for a while, and then it just kind of died down, we don't even have much to debunk because their claims were political circus aimed at the western people. If they can provide proper evidence, then I'll take time to investigate properly.

Meanwhile there is an actual genocide of Muslims currently underway and so far so good western media seems to be on-board, so I have a hard time to believe them

Note, I am actually Iranian myself. If there is a Muslim genocide underway I'm inclined to go figure it out

[–] mellowheat@suppo.fi -3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Well, You absolutely can, since it actually saves you time. Otherwise you’d go and listen to Fox News slop as well

Not trusting Fox News is pretty fucking easy tbh :) Wikipedia is not quite as trivial, I feel.