First of all, wellcome (although I'm a fairly new member of the forum too).
"Bad reputation" is a vague concept. For example, Donald J. Trump was sworn in as 45th President of the United of American less than 48 hours ago and American and European media have already decided that he's the worst president ever and that he has zero support from the people of the United States (he won the last presidential election, but, according to them, that does not mean anything). Whatever the sucesses or failures of a Trump administration, I can easily imagine what kind of book an UCLA professor will be writing in 20 or 30 years time about this period of American History.
Media is biased. So are historians. Before the fall of the Soviet Union, sympathizing with the Bolshevik Revolution was the fashionable thing among "experts" in Russian History (otherwise you were labelled a Cold War Warrior, barely better than a fascist). After the fall of the Soviet Union, when archives provided enough proofs of the crimes committed by the Communist regime, the cheerleading for Lenin became somewhat outdated, but that certainly wasn't enough for most "experts" to show some level of sympathy towards someone who had been labelled during decades a tyrant and a pogrom-inciting antisemite.
If a new narrative was needed and the heroes of the past: Lenin and his Merry Men (Stalin, Trotsky, Dzherzhinsky) had to be replaced, new heroes could be found: Guchkov, Milyukov, Lvov and the rest of Russian liberals who wanted to transform Russia into a modern European country, the men of the Februrary Revolution and the Provisional Government. If does not matter much that they were not very honest men: they lied, they slandered, they refused to condemn revolutionary terrorism, they blocked in the Duma measures coming from the government which would have meant an improvement in the life of millions of subjects of the Russian Empire (because these measures came from the government, not from them) and they behaved in a clearly irresponsible way, helping to unleash forces that they weren't able to control afterwards. Those are little defects that can be easily "photoshopped".
The point is: take "bad reputation" with a grain of salt.
And now, your question.
Would there have been a revolution (or two) in Russia without a world war? The answer is "No". Lenin knew it and based his hopes on a war between Austria and Russia.
"His [Lenin's] confidence proceeded from calculations he had expressed in a letter to Maxim Gorki in 1913: "War between Austria and Russia would be a very useful thing for the revolution (in the whole of eastern Europe), but it is scarcely likely that Franz Joseph [the Hapsburg Emperor] and Nikolasha [Lenin's nickname for the Russian Emperor] would grant us this pleasure."
Robert Service, Lenin, p.228
That's Lenin, the great humanitarian.
I based my answer on the hypotesis that the Russian Empire manage to avoid war with one of the Great Powers (Germany, Austria, Britain) if not forever, at least for several decades.
Nicholas II was 46 in 1914, he might have lived another 30 years or more. Olga (and TMA) would have married and hopefully any of them would have born a healthy son (that is, not hemophilic) who might have become the next tsar on Nicholas' death (He would have been 20-something). Or Nicholas II could have changed the law to allow women to suceed to the throne (as it was before Paul I forbade it, because he hated his mother, Ekaterina II).
No WWI means no revolution in Russia, no dismemberment of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and no Treaty of Versailles, and therefore no Weimar Republic. Lenin dies in Switzerland, before finishing his work nš 165 fighting some kind of deviationism from true (Lenin's) socialism. No Soviet Union, no nazi Germany. Hitler and Stalin don't have the chance of murdering millions. The world would have been a completely different place.