Just after the 34:00 mark, he gets into WP "process" and how everyone agrees there's too much of it, comparing it to a legal code. I'd been listening in the background, but that caught my attention; how could someone who spent enough time observing WP to write a scholarly book about it, only think to mention that WP has so many rules, but not also that none of them are actually obligatory? And that - contrary to his claim that they all worry about it, this is actually part of the design, and serves those who can use it quite well. So then he seems to answer me, coming to IAR right before 35:00. Here's how he understands it:
QUOTE
...there's also this rule - one of the first ones - which is ignore all rules. And basically it says if you find yourself getting too obsessed with all these rules and norms, just ignore them for the time being, edit a page, try to do a good job, and don't give it any more thought. But of course there ends up being this huge argument about what does IAR mean? Does it mean you can be a jerk, or you can say you can't tell me what to do? And of course they discuss it forever.
Could this be any more wrong? He's not even parroting the propaganda properly! "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Has anyone everr invoked IAR as an excuse to stop arguing, not worry about things, and go improve and article? Isn't this in fact the very "advice" offered to whomever is attempting to IAR (except those few with enough juice to pull it off)?
It just seems so completely credulous, it's hard to believe he's sincere.
ps. And it's completely deceitful to repeatedly mention the "porn cutups" without once noting where they came from. In fact, I think I just made up my (theory of) mind about him.