Wikipedia

shit really? I'd alway found there to be quite an anarchisty bent, but maybe i had a low expectation of anarchism even being mentioned as part of socialism...

Remember it can be edited, so maybe thats whats happened.

wikipedia is seemingly a nightmare. i've heard there some anarcho-capitalist who says that all the other anarchists are lying about anarchism being a workers movement and being socialist.

again, if thats true, its a new development.

I doubt i'd have much time for anarchism if it had not been for Wikipdia's bite sized digests on it. Maybe i'm easily pleased.... But, and its a big but, there was to my knowledge very little mention of anarcho capitalism in the anarchism sections. Possibly there was none at all. It would rock if anarcho-capitalism was not even considered part of the main anarchism portal; but, true as that would be in some ways, its a bit biased and would only invite more creative editing.

georges: "wikipedia is seemingly a nightmare. i've heard there some anarcho-capitalist who says that all the other anarchists are lying about anarchism being a workers movement and being socialist."

i think that's under either Left Libertarian or Libertarian Left.

t.

the "Anarcho"-Capitalism crap has actually been going on for some time, with real Anarchists trying a good deal to keep the Capitalists from posting their stuff as a form of actual Anarchism. many were willing enough to allow "Anarcho"-Capitalism as a disambiguation (ie: might contain the word "Anarchism," but it's not at all part of the Anarchist ideology - kind of like if someone tried to put Bakunin's league of social-democracy (or whatever it was called) under the listing for Social-Democracy).

but they were able to push their way in anyway, it seems. for a while, it resulted in the Anarchism entry being locked, because people were making changes too much.

I personally think that so-called anarcho-caps are simply seeking to insert this ideology with an "anarcho" in front of it enough to dupe people ignorant and curious about what anarchism is just enough to undermine its real meaning. Just like the ruling class near the turn of the last century missrepresented anarchy as a state of chaos, they are now trying to paint it as some sort of capatilist ideal. Strange indeed, but i'm not worried about it. We've survived past missrepresentations and I'm sure we'll make it through this one just fine.

Wasn't the anarcho vs anarcho-cap argument one of the origins of the Anarchist FAQ?

I thought the debate on wikipedia had ended, turns out it just moved to the "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" article - see here for the discussion. I would get involved but frankly can't be fucked, anarcho-capitalism is even more irrelevant than anarchism itself...

More concerning for me was a bit ago when someone (who may be known to people here - don't want to give away name on a public forum tho) edited the article on EuroMayDay to claim that it was a front for neo-Nazis to infiltrate the anti-capitalist movement. Same user has done the same to other articles. Whatever one may think of EuroMayDay itself, having a popular online resource like Wikipedia (which is quickly becoming people's first call for things they may be unfamiliar with) state things like that is incredibly damaging.

Gonna have a go at some of the anarchism articles when I have time.

I'd always understood it to have meant chaos and disorder long long before libertarians and socialists used it to label their way of thought.

The first people to call themselves anarchist: around the 19th century i believe.

'Anarchy' being used as a rhetorical device to describe the chaos and endless war that is apparently what follows or precedes the absence of the state: used by (i think) St Augustine in the 3rd century and certainly used by Thomas Hobbes and Rousseau (100 years later) in this way in the 16th century.

Sorry mate, but after some brief research i've had to conclude that the etymology of 'anarchy' is just as, if not more, valid as a term for chaos.

Hence 'libcom'.

I think that the explanation Kropotkin give in "On Order" best explains why "anarchism" is used to represent a new social order. To sum up, Kropotkin explains that the current social order is chaotic and unnatural, therefore inhibiting the free development of mankind. So, in order for a society of order to occur, it must be "chaos" relative to the "order" of the chaotic society that we live in. This polemic was one of the major reasons why I began using the political label "Anarchist" as well as Communist -- Anarchist Communist.

Having said that, I'll have a go at Wiki myself. I remember working on the Anarchist, anarchist Communist, and other pages, but I'll check them out again now.

you're just saying that so you can link this thread next time you slag off radfem () jargon, showing you're an equal opportunities flamer. clever boy

that said, it always grates when people don't write Confederación Nacional del Trabajo in full.

limpcommies, surely? [(c) Class War]

All those ones about hanging paedos, you mean?

all that said about people using the term "anarchy" to mean "chaos" for a good long time, the actual origins of the word (greek origins) do not necessarily mean "chaos," but something along the lines of "without rulership." so it still seems to me that folk have some grounds for being annoyed when people refer to chaotic situations (typically, situations where a bunch of factions are vying for rulership of whatever) as "anarchy." "anarchy" came to be a synonym for "chaos" simply because rulers or those steeped in the concept of the necessity of kings/emperors/etc believed chaos would be the result of a lack of rulership.

kind of similar to how the term "fascist," in common usage, means "authority figure," or "person who disagrees with me." just because people are using the term very loosely doesnt mean the more true definition is gone or invalid.

I think wikipedia's treatment of anarchism has sunk to a new low. Ladies, gentlemen and gentlequeers, I give you: Anarcho-Monarchism.

wow.

from wikipedia:

"Anarcho-monarchism was advocated by artists such as Salvador Dalí and J. R. R. Tolkien."

Very prominent headcases

Nah the main problem with anarcho-monarchism is that everyone knows that the orks were the proletarian class created by sauron and sarumans bourgeois machinations, so what the hobbits should really have done is united with proletarian factions among the orks in overthrowing both sauron and the reactionary anti-republican ruling class of gondor instead of succumbing to the national liberation struggle.

The idea that jrr tolkein would have had the words 'anarcho' attatched to anything he did is just hilarious. And salvador dali, wtf? I assume thats just to make it sound intellectual in the head of the irritating mentalist who wrote that.

good work comrades

the attribution of "anarcho-monarchism" to JRR Tolkien is crazy. Tolkien was a Catholic medievalist (an expert on beowolf) who was a part of the "Inklings" circle around C.S. Lewis at the University of Cambridge. He was a nationalist WWI vet. In other words, he was in fact big on states. "Lord of the Rings" portrays a medieval warrior culture.

t.

Actually I think there is an interview with his somewhere where he describes himself as an anarchist.

A bit of googling gives
“My political opinions lean more and more to anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control, not whiskered men with bombs).” ~ J.R.R. Tolkien, in Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien

A problkem with Wikipedia is that this sort of thing is enough evidence for a dedicated nut to get an entry out of. It means wiki good for showing you the scope of something but not so good for seperating the important from the trivial.

yes, i'd seen that little thing about Tolkien before, too - it was in a really small book which gave a very quick rundown of lots of different political terms, i think... mentioned tolkien in there.

was the part about this... (god, i hate even saying it)... thing being related to an-caps serious, or was it just an Anarcho-NotIdiotist poking fun?

anyway... the damned thing better get deleted! it looks to be on the chopping block, hope it stays there.

Many Wikipedia articles have associated discussion pages.

The discussion page for the article "List of Anarchists" includes an interestingly heated discussion on Tolkien:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_anarchists#On_Tolkien

Well my other thread seemed to have died a death. Didn't see this one the first time around.

Anyone actually involved in putting stuff on wiki?

... is controlled by a cabal of right wing extremists and retard atheists who bitch and moan about everything. HEY WHY CAN'T I INSERT BLACK PEEBLE GOTS LOWER IQS YOU FUCKIN' CHRISTIANS FREEEEEE SPEEEEECH. HEY WHY CANT I EDIT IN MULTICULTURAL SOCOETIES GETS MORE CRIME WITHOUR MENTIONING SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS BECAUSE IM A FUCKING CUNT FREEEEE SPEEWEECH.

They seriously needs some authorial control if they want to be treated realistically. Just look at the fucking Race and Intelligence article, where a bunch of pasty, neckbeard crackers wax philosophical about the profound statement "hmmm are white people just better than everyone else *jacks off their tiny dicks".

I'll stick with my Encyclopædia Britannica thank you very much. At least they don't have an article about fucking "National-Anarchist"

Since my other post got deleted for being wildly spammy, I'll just post this:

Wikipedia is run by idiots and crazy people. Their anti-POV club has white nationalists in their ranks. Their articles on anime child pornography is fully supportive of it. Their articles on pornography are run by propertarian obssesed freaks. Their articles on race are monopolized by right-wing extremists. Their articles on crime are run by right wing extremists. Their articles on IQ are monopolized by right wing extremists. Their articles on Islam? Right wing extremists. Women, feminism and the like? Right wing extremists. Black nationalism, black anarchism, and the like? Right wing extremists. (The article of black anarchism refered to the KKK as a white civil rights group. Ugh.)

Pretty much every article on a sensitive issue goes so far to the right wing, it becomes a bloody caricature. Their article on 'beastiality' (they fucking called it zoophilia the peverts) seems to fawn over the concept - one sentence saying "some people consider it a crime against nature" and then a whole bunch of dumb wind about ARE LIBERTY (to rape animals like a sick fuck).

Because of their retarded devotion to being impartial, crazy people insert shit in the obligatory 'race in the media' article like "media seems to ignore the important biotruth like 'blacks are inferior because IQ. [Source is extreme right website]" and no one can just put it out without a cavalcade of neckbeards screeching about free speech. It's a trashheap, and anyone who tries toclean anything up is shouted down like so many redditor descending on a woman who just expressed her opinions.

And my god, I could write a small book about Israel/jewish internet defense force is holding all articles on, or related to, Israel hostage at gunpoint. You get to hear wonderful pseudohistory on how Palestinians are directly influenced by nazism. Yep, real unbiased! Don't think about it too hard, just be glad all sides of the discussion should be heard. Even the retarded ones!

And believe me, every other article is about glorifying weird, perverted anime rape porn or something. You've got a billion supernerds, weeaboos, and neckbeards writing book-sizedbarticles on naruto o nu kawaii karazii ni nani but only a couple words on, I don't know, the history of Yuan era China.

On wikipedia, you can find out which episode of Gilligan's Island had the deleted gangbang scene, but not about, say, anything that you should probably fucking know.

Their history coverage is horrid. Its a mish mash of nonsense slamming together a high school level essay on the counter-reformation. No context or anything, just a bloody recital of events. Want to know about World War 1 or the Chinese Civil War? Eh, here's the world's most bare bones version of it. Confused? Eh, just go read our fantastic series of articles on the US television show LOST.

Any slightly obscure, but profoundly important, article gets shafted. The article on modern warfare reads like someone was bored. Their article on guerilla warfare sounds like an overexicited moron wrote it, as does their article on Dual Power. The article on Call of Duty: modern warfare is longer than their article on War.yes, the entire concept.

Wikipedia needs to be more like its science articles, they have strict control, clever crocks are only aloud to contribute etc. They need to restrict Wikipedia to those with college degrees and let the neckbeards edit their anime articles. In fact, wikipedia should get rid of all this sort of nonsense like "anime" and cartoons and the like and only allow important articles. They need to ban all these political crusaders and allow only the verifiably imtelligent to edit.

Also, they need to block governments and government agencies from editing. Allowing only individuals and NGOs to edit important articles.

And lastly they need to BAN all internet citations and citations from other Wikipedia articles. Also get the shit rid of NPOV and replace it with a "Right Point of View" and delete all stupid bullshit. Also, these college degree holding Wikipedians ought to be paid for every good article they make based on how much goodness they contributed and shit.

And lastly, they should enact some sort of affirmative action, making contributers represent women and minorities more, especially including the poor and people from third world countries or outside the US.

They should also let WikiProjects exclusively edit some articles of importance, and restrict entryship into WikiProjects strigently.

And lastly, they need to get rid off that idiotic sperg Jimmy Wales and replace him with someone with an actual fucking brain and shit. Perferably someone working class.

-a former wikipedia editor. Fuck wikipedia forever.