QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 2nd August 2010, 10:09am)
Jon, did the CPOV dialog proceed to a review of
Vaknin's follow-up to comments and criticisms arising in the aftermath of his interview with Daniel Tynan?
QUOTE(Is Wikipedia a Cult? Wikipedia strikes back)
Is Wikipedia a Cult? Wikipedia strikes backSam Vaknin, Ph.D. — 6/16/2010
In response to Dan Tynan's
excellent article about Wikipedia , Wikipedia struck back, in an article typically riddled with blatant lies and not so subtle distortions (see the text below). …
No, the posts that followed in May 2010 were these:
- Joseph Reagle — cited Wikipedia's Own “Cult Checklistâ€
- Jon Awbrey — cited Wikipedia Review on “Single Mad Beliefâ€
- Nathaniel Tkacz — “i don' think the question of whether wikipedia is or is not a cult is a
useful one.†- Jon Awbrey —
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ 31 May 2010, CEST 16:06)
Nathaniel & All,
The good of a concept or a term of description, more or less following Kant and Peirce, is that it unifies a manifold of sense impressions.
As it happens, my work on social and technical means of facilitating inquiry led me study the factors that "block inquiry", in other words, that inhibit critical reflective thinking, long before I ever encountered the worldview of the Wikipedian true believer. One of the telltale signs of a closed belief system that I kept noticing was one that I dubbed the "cul-de-sac" — rhymes with "cultist act". This is any plank of a belief platform that keeps those who stand on it from reflecting critically on its fundamental structures and evaluating their suitability for the espoused common purpose.
For my part, I am skeptical of the hypothesis that “Peter Damian†asserted to lead off that sample thread — I don't think I'd trace every deleterious effect of the Wikipedia Complex to a “single†mad belief, but I can see some sense in trying to unify the manifold of otherwise senseless impressions.
Jon