Yesterday I was blocked in Russian Wikipedia for I'd been violating the rules of this community for three years. I'm not going to resume editing all the wikiprojects for absolutionary, destructive action in the wikiprojects is a form of entrism, a trotskyist, semi-anarchist doctrine.

My activity in Wikipedia was one of the most serious missteps in my Internet biography. This awful misstep was caused by my immense ignorance. I thought that I'm unable to create my own platform without paying a sum of money. As you see, I didn't spend a kopeika.

The situation with Wikipedia is rather ridiculous, in my estimation.Seven years ago, I was an average Russian Wikipedian. I didn't wrote about an acute class struggle a lot, but I wouldn't say that Wikipedia was such a backwater seven years ago. The main of my conversationalists were petty bourgeois intellectuals, but they weren't arrogant and horrendous. They were quite attentive, bitterend, above-board, honest, so I don't exclaim against them because I discussed secondary historical figures, the likes of Henry Dundas, John Churchill, and William Pitt the Younger.

I wrote my first articles on labour movement with a great amount of concessions to 'neutrality' but nobody detected the words ' class struggle' and 'reactionary bourgeoisie'. Then I buckled down to writing less and less neutrally. I buckled down to using emotionally coloured words. I wrote mu further with a great revolutionaty passion, so nowadays Wikipedia is just stuffed with non-neutral articles on labour strikes.

As for my blocked account, I don't really regret that I should have been banned because all my articles about labour strikes were saved. If the Wikipedian right-wing opportunists rewrite all my articles about strikes, I'll punish them with my witty, acerbic tongue in my personal website.

Wikipedia itself has got two sorts of policies. The first type is the blatant attack on the labour movement, violent, sadistic respressions, deleting progressive articles.
This kind of policies will blight Wikipedia because Mark Bernstein, the head of this reactionary movement, is quite a predominant figure in Russian Wiki. His shameful crusade against my article on the Great Railroad Strike in America was especially remarkable, because he asked in the talkpage who Philip Foner was. In other words, Bernstein didn't deign to google who Foner, a prominent labour historian, was, so he tried to emasculate the revolutionary spirit of my article without reading, even without perusing the mian primary and secondary sources.

Bernstein abandoned emasculating the most of non-neutral articles because of their big volume, so nowadays, the most of my articles are still totally non-neutral 'bolshevik proclamations'. The thing is that there're so many users, violating the main rules of community, so Bernstein and his liberal friends are incredibly busy with banning insane bigots, participating in numberless clashes, feuds, ridiculous political claptraps inside their liberal ophidiarium.

The second type of policies is social-democratic, more left-wing and liberal. In my opinion, this kind of policies is much more dangerous, because they coax and flatter the labour encyclopedists, like me, to make us more moderate and much more obedient. This kind of policies is about rewriting articles. But today this sort of policies is less widespread. The open reaction, without concessions, is a predominant tendency in Russian Wikipedia.

I've been laughing at Wikipedians who have banned me. Their nicks themselves show that the mental equipment of Wikipedia's administration is quite miserable. It's evident that the most editors, the likes of Mark Bernstein, are socially, intellectually backward, because they're a set of liberal blackguards from the 2000s, so their notions of labour movement are certainly close to zero.

In brief, Wikipedia is the past. This shelter of fascists, dotards, and rabid bigots has got rather beaurocratised social organisation. Technically, they're much more backward than my own website, so it won't occur to me to resume writing articles in ruwiki. Wikipedia is still popular but its technical, social, political backwardness objects to becoming one of the pivotal scientific, cultural, and political Internet portal in the nearest future. The popularity of Wikipedia among the backward masses of proletariat won't last very long.

P. S. It would appear that my conception of Mille's influence on Falaleyev's pedagogical views isn't correct. The thing is that his views themselves militate against science. May be, Falalyev is much more obscurantistic than I imagine. May be, my critique is oversimplified. The point is that August Compte, Bertrand Russel  didn't militate against science openly. They just reduced the purposes of scientific research. In other words, don't consider the conception of Falaleyev's subjective idealism as a certain fact.

This page was last edited on 24 October 2023.