![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Peter Damian |
![]()
Post
#1
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 4,400 Joined: Member No.: 4,212 ![]() |
See Jimbo's talk page, and the [[Ayn Rand]] article which I have rewritten. The bet is how long it will stay in its rewritten state. I love the remark that 'Aristotle was sorely over-rated'.
QUOTE 'Aristotle was sorely overrated'. Ha! Wikipediot. Obscure greek Homer 42k, famous american Homer 65k. I would have bought this argument when Wikipedia first began. But as I pointed out above, the project is now mature, and we still find it difficult to attract editors who can write accessible material on more encylopedic subjects. The reason is abundantly clear: the place is infested with cranks, advocates of strange fringe theories, mystics, lunatics of all kinds. No sane intelligent person would go near the place with a bargepole. In any case, I have now re-written the introduction to Ayn Rand that makes it less obviously written by Rand fanatics. Let's see what happens from there on. If the introduction stands relatively unchanged, I lose my bet. If it is torn to shreds and returned to the unreadable ungrammatical state as before, I win, bigtime. Peter Damian (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...es_in_Wikipedia This post has been edited by Peter Damian: |
![]() ![]() |
maggot3 |
![]()
Post
#2
|
Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 251 Joined: Member No.: 6,260 ![]() |
I still find it absolutely unbelievable that people subscribe to Ayn Rand's abhorrent views, believe that that nonsense is applicable to real life, and even worse, read her awful, awful writing.
Uh, actually, this is kind of off topic for the thread. Oops. This sort of thing is pretty sad. To be kind of on topic. This post has been edited by maggot3: |
Peter Damian |
![]()
Post
#3
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 4,400 Joined: Member No.: 4,212 ![]() |
I still find it absolutely unbelievable that people subscribe to Ayn Rand's abhorrent views, believe that that nonsense is applicable to real life, and even worse, read her awful, awful writing. Uh, actually, this is kind of off topic for the thread. Oops. This sort of thing is pretty sad. To be kind of on topic. Well, awful or not, Jimmy has come out for Rand on his talk page. The article has been 'restored' to its former glory, and Lar has left a threat on my talk page. This one is actually worthy of a ban (probably my final ban, but, yes, worth it). QUOTE I'm not at all interested in the underlying content issue here. You're simply not acknowledging my point: it is wrong for you to insult a tenured academic who is expert in the area in question and at the same time whine about academic respectability.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC) You are right, I have never noticed you had any interest in underlying content issues. Peter Damian (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Hicks, by the way, also received a grant http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-1917-S_hicks.aspx from the Objectivist Centre. This post has been edited by Peter Damian: |
Lar |
![]()
Post
#4
|
"His blandness goes to 11!" ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 2,116 Joined: From: A large LEGO storage facility Member No.: 4,290 ![]() |
Well, awful or not, Jimmy has come out for Rand on his talk page. The article has been 'restored' to its former glory, and Lar has left a threat on my talk page. This one is actually worthy of a ban (probably my final ban, but, yes, worth it). More of a prediction, really. Since you're cruising for a block, I shall not oblige you. But not to worry, someone will soon enough. |
Peter Damian |
![]()
Post
#5
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 4,400 Joined: Member No.: 4,212 ![]() |
Well, awful or not, Jimmy has come out for Rand on his talk page. The article has been 'restored' to its former glory, and Lar has left a threat on my talk page. This one is actually worthy of a ban (probably my final ban, but, yes, worth it). More of a prediction, really. Since you're cruising for a block, I shall not oblige you. But not to worry, someone will soon enough. 'Cruising for a block' is an obvious threat. And what is the block for? 4 academic philosophers on the Rand page supported my re-write of the introduction. 1 idiot troll opposed. Wales supports the troll. I lose the battle. As for the war... |
Lar |
![]()
Post
#6
|
"His blandness goes to 11!" ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 2,116 Joined: From: A large LEGO storage facility Member No.: 4,290 ![]() |
'Cruising for a block' is an obvious threat. No, it's an observation of your behaviour. I don't threaten. Guess what, you might be right about the Ayn Rand article. But if you actually want to fix it, you're going the wrong way about it. And you know it, since you stated: QUOTE On being difficult to work with, that is the whole and entire point. I have no desire to 'work with' anyone here. Why on earth would I? We get it. You're not there to write an encyclopedia, you're there to count coup, make bets, score points, posture for the viewing audience there and here, and the like. Spare us. If you were there to actually write an encyclopedia, you would not be going about it this way. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it... So stop the posturing. It's not worth your time or anyone else's. Most everyone's on to you already. |
tarantino |
![]()
Post
#7
|
the Dude abides ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,441 Joined: Member No.: 2,143 ![]() |
If you were there to actually write an encyclopedia, you would not be going about it this way. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it... So stop the posturing. It's not worth your time or anyone else's. Most everyone's on to you already. Is that the sole reason you're there. Lar, to write an encyclopedia? |
Milton Roe |
![]()
Post
#8
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 10,209 Joined: Member No.: 5,156 ![]() |
If you were there to actually write an encyclopedia, you would not be going about it this way. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it... So stop the posturing. It's not worth your time or anyone else's. Most everyone's on to you already. Is that the sole reason you're there. Lar, to write an encyclopedia? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) Ah, you funny man. That all depends on how you define "encyclopedia," now, doesn't it? Wikipedia is a giant changable vulgar online Baedeker, Who's Who, Book of Lists, Dump of Trivia, mass of misconceptions, remarkable linked nuggets of truth, repository of popular culture, biography, tabloid, cultivated corporate directory, and mega-almanac of various kinds of stuff. Really, it's not like anything that has previously existed. It only calls itself an encyclopedia when some semblance of respectablity-by-proxy-word is needed. Usually in order to win some kind of grant, or accolade or award from the clueless world which hears "encyclopedia" and has memories of "Britannica," or feels some ghost of idealism born of Voltaire and Diderot and the Enlightenment. But Wikipedia is not that. Not now. When not dressed up in white-tie, tophat and tails for the establishment, Wikipedia is happy to point out all those ways it isn't at all like Britannica. But it won't give up the idea or term "encyclopedia," because in the Wiki-world, words mean exactly what you want them to mean, no more and no less. And if you want to work the words extra hard, you can do that, and you don't even have to pay them more for it, as in Alice In Wonderland, because it's all done by volunteers. So, since the world "encyclopedia" is defined privately by Wikipedia, and amounts to whatever they want to define it as (and it changes regularly), the phrase "I'm here to write an encyclopedia" actually translates to "I'm here to write whatever I want to, and can get away with writing, according to my political power on this site." But that doesn't sound nearly so cool. Or noble. And just as definitional authority on a given website flows from the power of administration, so also does truthiness. Does an "encyclopedia" have to be "true"? No, we don't go there, either. The accusation: "You're not here to write an encyclopedia" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) means "You're not here to write Wikipedia" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif) which in turn means "You're not here to do as we tell you to do." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) To which the answer has been given above, already, I think: "So fucking what?" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif) Convince me that you're smarter than I am, or know more, and then I'll be embarrassed at my answer on that. Okay? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif) Milt |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |