Just like with Bakhmut, the pro-UA wikipedia editors couldn't bring themselves to write Russian victory. There were a lot of proposals to close off the article "Battle of Vuhledar" as a Ukrainian victory, and then write a new article "Vuhledar Offensive" where Russia won. The cope is unreal, but it looks like there are veteran Wikipedia editors who are sticklers for correctness and completeness and are not taking any shit.

If you don't know, it took several months after Bakhmut fell for Wikipedia to reflect that. The cope was that no reputable sources said "Ukraine lost Bakhmut" and therefore it didn't happen, despite Russians moving past Bakhmut and assaulting villages to the West of it. Talk page Lots of threads are missing, there were at least a dozen discussing the issue of "Russian victory" back and forth. Is there an archive?

Some wild guesses in the comments, but generally higher than over on Twitter lol.

The actual answer is 800 unique visitors every day! Congratulations to @[email protected] who came the closest at 700!

Not a trick question but a very interesting one to ask

Answer is here

I know Saul Wenger and Wisconcom are the same guy since they are from Wisconsin Wisconcom could even be an alias Eddie from MWM uses

Many events and purges happened during this time Wisconcom and JucheGuevara would both get Purged and the split of ProleWiki and the Creation of the NazBol website InfraWiki the Start of Wincon Files and the start of the ProleWiki Book Club

The Last Edit on the main page was in April and some edits have been outdated for a year.

We're very open about our stats because we don't have anything to hide. In fact, openly publishing (curated) analytics about website visits is actually helpful to gauge the impact ProleWiki is having, where it's going, where it can improve and where it's expected to change, etc.

Current stats on the English-language instance, which is by far the most lively:

On daily visits:

• around 1000 daily visits
• this amounts to 30k visits per month!
• Unique visits represent 2/3rds of the above figure, which means very few repeated visits during the same month.
• >100k pageviews per month
• Comes out to around 3 pages viewed per visit (not necessarily homepage -> search -> final page)

On geographic provenance:

• Almost half (but below half) of all visits come from the USA, though virtually all countries of the world are represented over a yearly period. This makes sense as the English instance mostly interests English speakers, of which the USA is the most prominent country of origin on the Internet.
• The only countries that did not originate any visits this year so far is the DPRK, Turkmenistan, Niger, Chad, Sudan, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Central African Republic, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea. 2 Asian countries and 8 African countries. Every other state/country/territory (we use a wider map than the 196 UN states) generated at least 1 visit this year. This is still only for the English-language instance.

On charting evolution:

Since we started tracking visits (anonymously and with non-proprietary, self-hosted software) some 695 days ago, we see an increase in daily visits by 1.09 per day. This seems low, but consider that:

1. We still register almost 1000 visits per day, the 1.09 figure is the durable increase over time.
2. It's a positive increase, meaning the website is becoming more popular regardless.
3. This amounts to 30 extra daily visits by the end of the month. By the end of 2024, if this trend continues, we would see a durable increase of 121 daily visits, going from 1000 to 1100 daily.

• We finished 2023 on December 31st at 959 thousand pageviews.
• We expect to reach 1 million pageviews for the year in early October.
• At this same rate, we will end 2024 with 1.163 million pageviews.
• This is a 121% difference from 2023.

On the pages visited:

• Without surprise the most visited pages day after day are the index/homepage and the recent changes page.
• After that, the most visited content pages generally revolve around patsocs. Pizza index has been popular recently because of Iran's retaliation. Whatifalthist is also a big one because he keeps saying dumb shit on Twitter.
• This shouldn't be too surprising especially as these visits mostly come from Google searches. This means we rank generally well for these terms.
• Overall, over 850 wiki pages are seen each day. These can be any content type: library books, plain wiki pages, special pages, categories, etc.
• While many pages only register between 1 and 3 clicks per day (the vast majority of our pages in fact; over 80% of all visits go to those), these are still important: it's information that we were able to provide to readers that they otherwise wouldn't have read on ProleWiki!
• We see that specific pages also receive interest which correlate with wider news. Claudia De la Cruz's page for example was a contender for top-visited for a few days in a row when she announced her candidacy for presidency of the USA.

Hope you found this interesting.

(yes I also wrote one lol)

You can request an account here: https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Special:RequestAccount

The error message shows:

Book rendering failed

There was an error while attempting to render your book.

I was accessing the wiki using Firefox. I tried disabling uBlock Origin to see if it was the reason, but the same error was displayed.

Didn't know where I should ask about this error, so shared it here.

Can a similar feature as was added for articles where edits can be suggested or typos flagged for review and approval be added to library entries as well?

I understand that these are published texts, not wiki articles that should not typically be edited, but I've occasionally run across typos that I assume aren't from the original text. Things such as "the the."

I'm not familiar with how these texts are uploaded, so it's possible they exist in the source text as well and should be left unaltered.

A:

Imperialism is the highest stage of the capitalist mode of production, in which monopolies and cartels become the prevalent economic force of society.[1]

Lenin is often credited for having synthesized a Marxist analysis of imperialism with the publishing of his pamphlet Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism in 1916, most notably on the foundation of the earlier work of John A. Hobson entitled Imperialism: A Study. Beginning with the first paragraph of his pamphlet, Vladimir Lenin wrote that rapid growth of industry and concentration of production in growing enterprises represent the key characteristic of capitalism.[1]

Multiple theorists have updated, deepened, developed or critically engaged with the classical analysis of Imperialism. Other theorists developed different conceptualisations, including most notably Kwame Nkrumah, remaining situated within the framework of scientific socialism. Most recently, the concept of neoimperialism has emerged in the work of Cheng Enfu.

The development of imperialism in the global economy also reinforces a dialectical relationship between core-periphery countries, mainly dependency and subordination of underdeveloped countries to imperialist economies. In conjunction with these developments, new theoretical models were proposed to understand developments, such as dependency theory and world-systems theory.

B:

Imperialism represents the highest stage of the capitalist mode of production, where monopolies and cartels dominate the economic landscape of society.

Lenin is widely recognized for synthesizing a Marxist analysis of imperialism with the publication of his 1916 pamphlet, "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism." This work builds on John A. Hobson's earlier study, "Imperialism: A Study." Lenin begins his pamphlet by asserting that the rapid growth of industry and the concentration of production in expanding enterprises are key characteristics of capitalism.

Numerous theorists have subsequently updated, expanded, and critically engaged with the classical analysis of imperialism. Notably, Kwame Nkrumah contributed significantly within the framework of scientific socialism. More recently, Cheng Enfu has introduced the concept of neoimperialism.

The evolution of imperialism in the global economy reinforces a dialectical relationship between core and periphery countries, highlighting the dependency and subordination of underdeveloped nations to imperialist economies. This dynamic has led to the development of new theoretical models, such as dependency theory and world-systems theory, to better understand these global economic relationships.

For the purpose of this question you can only choose between A or B. Please explain your reasoning.

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.