The meme seems to be ironic than actually saying that Doland is like that.

Should I mention that in meme title or description?

True. At the same time, it seems to have made people talk more about renewable/alternate energy resources.

I think you may have misunderstood point of that image.

It not on the sources being biased(there are no unbiased sources), but noting the easily notable bias in the Wikipedia source selection, the preference for media funded by pro-capitalist regimes.

Do you see an issue in noting how Wikipedia has this bias, and going against the notion by some that it is unbiased or neutral?

The meme seems to replying to those who ignore the attacks that Socialism faced and try to say that it 'naturally' is destined to fail. The meme seems to be criticism on that and reminding them of the great threats that Socialist-led states faced to still thrive.

It does not mean that we are surprised, but for others who ignore that aspect or maybe spreading such a negative image to others.

I think Socialist-led states have observed failures and made changes to survive and thrive.

ThirdConsul is pretending socialism means the absence entirely of private property.

That is actually the aim of Communism, not Socialism, right? For that, there would be a transitionary phase, phase of socialism as an in-between stage, right?

I am not too well-versed on various lines of theory, but from observation, I think some non-Leninist Marxists do not subscribe to a multi phase development plan.

Being informed of the bias is also positive

No one mentioned anything about throwing the bathwater, but only hinted at the bias.

Are you trying to villainise and portray it as anti-intellectualism?
Are you thinking that the source you use is unbiased and trying to derial convos that hint at how it is not unbiased?

Noting the bias is a good thing and trying to shut down the convoys on that is a bigger mf to all of us.

Your concerns isn't unwarranted, but it does flirt with strawmanning and derailing the convo.

I think they were weaker, had lesser resources.

Many socialist states were former colonies or under capitalist regimes aligned with the colonial capitalist regimes, Vietnam, Laos, Korea, Cuba. They bad to build themselves up, under the capitalist attempts at sabotage. So unlikely they had enough resources to do anything back at hat scale.

USSR was indeed a powerful ally for them, but seems to have lesser resources compared to the Western empires with all their centuries of colonial expanse and the wealth accumulated.

The Sino-Soviet split also probably reduced united strength

The capitalist colonial regimes in many places fell tho. The South African apartheid regime backed by the USAmerican capitalist bloc, fell. Many colonies got free.

So, they were able to tackle colonialism, but likely did not have more resources for the level of influence that the colonial/capitalist bloc had

Idk, why should this issue be seen as good?

And what is your culture? Is Wikipedia good for it?

Vastly better than USAmerica

Is that the reason for Wikipedia's bias against their media?

Europe tags along with USAmerican regime's capitalist-imperialist actions and so their media is given an exemption?

Heck, even ProleWiki says that Socialism in China is a dream for the future, and that they are aiming for the poetic 100th birthday of PRC. I will believe that when I see it, because for now it's just a capitalist country.

Even if they are currently capitalist, they do not see it as the end stage, like the pro-capitalist regimes do?

So, let's not lie to ourselves, to deny the obvious preference that the Wikipedia page shows for the media from the pro-capitalist regimes.

China is led by a Communist party that aims to progress in the path of Socialism.

Compared to the West, not pro-Capitalist enough for Wikipedia then?