Jimbo Wales vs. Oliver Kamm, ...get your popcorn Options Rating

[thekohser]

Step 1:
Read this guest column in the Times of London:

Step 2:
Read Jimbo's response on the WikiEN mailing list:
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:23:55 -0400
From: Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Times article (London)
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org>

> "The notion that a false claim to knowledge is wrong is not part of
> Wikipedia's culture."

This is preposterous.

> "It combines the free-market dogmatism of the libertarian Right with
> the anti-intellectualism of the populist Left. "

Nonsense.

It is hard to know how to coherently respond to ignorant ranting which
appears to make no attempt to even connect at any point with the facts
of reality.

--Jimbo

Step 3:
Sit back and watch how Oliver Kamm (a noted radical intellectual and financial expert who has sparred with Noam Chomsky) tears open Jimmy Wales in the next few weeks. Pop some popcorn!

[Kato]

Kamm has edited his own biography before.

Curiously, Kamm, an awful British neo-conservative gobshite, made his last edit to the talk page of Philip Cross and it stated:

I'd like to draw your attention to a note I've just put on the user page of [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]], as it refers to you too. Thanks.[[User:OliverKamm|OliverKamm]] 13:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC

But I can't find the note to SV as it has been predictably removed. Reading between the lines it seems to involve a now deleted article on Kamm's nemesis, writer Neil Clark. SV dismisses Clark here saying "it would be a stretch to call him a journalist". Presumably her involvement is politically motivated yet again, as Clark is "strongly opposed to the neo-conservative war agenda".

I'd be intrigued to read the full goings on here. But thanks to this oversight mess, it remains obscure. But any spat between Der Jimbo and Oliver Kamm, with a sprinkling of Slim Shady subterfuge is surely worth following.

[Jonny Cache]

OK on WP —

The most constructive course is to stand on the sidelines and jeer at its pretensions.

This week has generated so many juicy 1-liners suitable for needlepoint embroidery and framing that I think we should refresh our site caption every day for a while, just to clear the backlog.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Somey]

Everybody keeps making more work for me! AAAAAAAAAA!

"Critics of the web decry the medium as the cult of the amateur. Wikipedia is worse than that; it is the province of the covert lobby."

Maybe the blurb could say "Welcome to the province of the covert lobby's luxury press box"?

[Jonny Cache]

Everybody keeps making more work for me! AAAAAAAAAA!

"Critics of the web decry the medium as the cult of the amateur. Wikipedia is worse than that; it is the province of the covert lobby."

Maybe the blurb could say "Welcome to the province of the covert lobby's luxury press box"?

I recall the culvert lobbies we had as young wippersnappers growin' up in Texas — there wouldn't be no wikisnappers for years to come — but mostly we jes hid out from our folks, chuggin' LoneStars, gallon jugs o' SaltyDogs, or sippin' Sloe Gin, for them what could stomach it. Then we'd upchuck and head on home.

I guess some things just never change …

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Somey]

>"The notion that a false claim to knowledge is wrong is not part of
> Wikipedia's culture."

This is preposterous.

Looking at this realistically, I think we could probably be somewhat charitable WRT Jimbo's claim of "preposterousness." The core of Wikipedia's user community does accept that a false claim to knowledge is wrong. What they absolutely don't accept, much to Jimbo's own recent chagrin, is the notion that they should have to prove that their claims to knowledge are true.

> "It combines the free-market dogmatism of the libertarian Right with
> the anti-intellectualism of the populist Left. "

Nonsense.

Maybe Jimbo didn't understand the quote? (Clearly, Dave Gerard didn't even try...)

By "free-market dogmatism of the libertarian Right," Kamm is presumably referring to the notion that "market forces" are the most effective way of ensuring that people get what they want. Many people believe this is simply wrong, and that government regulation is necessary to limit corruption, fraud, and so on. Wikipedia, which is almost totally unregulated and ruled by market forces, plays into this mode of thinking quite directly, I should think.

By "anti-intellectualism of the populist Left," Kamm is probably stretching things a bit - this sort of talk usually comes from right-wing types who are overly eager to equate communism with fascism, and who refer to "left-wing dictatorships" such as Stalin's and Mao Zedong's (both anti-intellectuals) as examples of the "populist left." While this really doesn't apply much to the politics of Western democracies, in terms of Wikipedia I'd say he has a valid point. Putting aside the issue of Wikipedia's power structure and its similarity to various totalitarian regimes (an idea I've never personally bought into), there are all sorts of examples on Wikipedia of popular movements being promoted at the expense of corporations, governments, and of course, intelligence agencies. (Not to mention other websites...) That's not necessarily bad, but then again, truth is relative even if facts are not. POV pushing is a huge problem on Wikipedia regardless of which political direction or ideology it occurs in the name of.

Kamm shouldn't be blamed for, in effect, trying to state his objections as plainly as he can. WP is more complex than that, but he's writing a news-site column, not a book.

Meanwhile, the foregoing is probably more appropriate for the blog, isn't it? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

[Kato]

Maybe Jimbo didn't understand the quote? (Clearly, Dave Gerard didn't even try...)

Yeah. What is David G talking about?

It appears to be a way of saying we're a bunch of communists despite
having been founded by an Objectivist. Or something.

Er... OK David. Mind you, I've always found it a struggle to decipher Kamm's revolving door politics and general lunacy. He calls himself a left winger who is opposed to socialists who wrote a book in praise of neo-conservativism etc etc. And labels just about everyone else a Nazi or Stalinist.

Kamm shouldn't be blamed for, in effect, trying to state his objections as plainly as he can.

True and it's probably the only decent thing Kamm has ever written. I wonder how it will be received by Slim - who has edited his bio (possibly after off wiki discussions with Kamm if my above post is anything to go by) . The ubiquitous Crum375 got involved to protect Kamm's bio, to allow for SV to shuffle chairs on the page, claiming BLP concerns. These concerns were about Kamm, and not genuine left winger Gilad Atzmon, who was being smeared in the article by Jewish extremist Isarig as - you've guessed it - a holocaust denier.

No matter what line you follow on WP, the wikipedia-web always seems to find its way to that spider's lair. Where SV and co are torturing some figure or other.

[Jonny Cache]

Freedom's Just Another Word For Nothing To Do On Da Left …

Maybe Jimbo didn't understand the quote? (Clearly, Dave Gerard didn't even try …)

Yeah. What is David G talking about?

It appears to be a way of saying we're a bunch of communists despite having been founded by an Objectivist. Or something.

It combines the free-market dogmatism of the libertarian Right with the anti-intellectualism of the populist Left.

Let's face it, OK's Chorale Et Terpsichore on Da Left refers to a phase it passed throuh suddenly one summer about 40 years ago, but at least it wrangles DG to 'fess up straitfwdly on the True Blew Grits of the Ayn Rand Corpse affectionately if Σwot necrophiliacly known as Duh DumbFoundation.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[thekohser]

>"The notion that a false claim to knowledge is wrong is not part of
> Wikipedia's culture."

This is preposterous.

Looking at this realistically, I think we could probably be somewhat charitable WRT Jimbo's claim of "preposterousness." The core of Wikipedia's user community does accept that a false claim to knowledge is wrong. What they absolutely don't accept, much to Jimbo's own recent chagrin, is the notion that they should have to prove that their claims to knowledge are true.

What everyone seems to be missing (both here and on WikiEN-l) is that Kamm's message in context was:

When a prominent Wikipedian who claimed to be a tenured professor of divinity was revealed instead to be a young college dropout, the site’s founder Jimmy Wales responded that he was unconcerned. The notion that a false claim to knowledge is wrong is not part of Wikipedia’s culture.

The line that everyone is focusing on is (in my opinion) not so much about "false claim to knowledge" in article content space, but rather on pseudonymous User pages. Of course, this jabs directly at Jimbo's judgment (or utter lack thereof) during the Essjay fiasco, which would be embarrassing, which is why Jimbo, Gerard & Co. have slightly, subtly tweaked the discussion so that Kamm appears more off-base than he actually was -- which was exactly on target vis-a-vis Ryan Jordan's false claim to knowledge.

Greg

[Jonny Cache]

"The notion that a false claim to knowledge is wrong is not part of Wikipedia's culture."

This is preposterous.

Source. Wikien-l/2007-August/079209.html

Looking at this realistically, I think we could probably be somewhat charitable WRT Jimbo's claim of "preposterousness". The core of Wikipedia's user community does accept that a false claim to knowledge is wrong. What they absolutely don't accept, much to Jimbo's own recent chagrin, is the notion that they should have to prove that their claims to knowledge are true.

What everyone seems to be missing (both here and on WikiEN-l) is that Kamm's message in context was:

When a prominent Wikipedian who claimed to be a tenured professor of divinity was revealed instead to be a young college dropout, the site’s founder Jimmy Wales responded that he was unconcerned. The notion that a false claim to knowledge is wrong is not part of Wikipedia’s culture.

The line that everyone is focusing on is (in my opinion) not so much about "false claim to knowledge" in article content space, but rather on pseudonymous User pages. Of course, this jabs directly at Jimbo's judgment (or utter lack thereof) during the Essjay fiasco, which would be embarrassing, which is why Jimbo, Gerard & Co. have slightly, subtly tweaked the discussion so that Kamm appears more off-base than he actually was — which was exactly on target vis-a-vis Ryan Jordan's false claim to knowledge.

Greg

Finally, Σ1 who can read > 1 line @ a time !!!

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[jorge]

In case noone noticed Grace Note aka Dr Zen commented on Kamm's article.

[dtobias]

In case noone noticed Grace Note aka Dr Zen commented on Kamm's article.

I commented too, mentioning BADSITES and WR. Probably really infuriated the clique, if they saw it.

[Kato]

Der Jimbo's WikiEN-l response to Kamm's "ignorant ranting" has been added to the Kamm article! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Kamm will certainly read this. And if I know Kamm, he'll make it his business to follow it up with a heap of mud and arrows aimed at Der Jimbo's direction. Kamm's also someone who knows his way round a courtroom, and likes a challenge. I couldn't imagine a better match. Kamm vs Der Jimbo. Two of the most detestable internet "celebrities" flapping at each other for our pleasure. It's a no lose situation. Long may it continue and flourish.

By the way, is it me or is Der Jimbo getting more and more intolerant?

In case noone noticed Grace Note aka Dr Zen commented on Kamm's article.

I commented too, mentioning BADSITES and WR. Probably really infuriated the clique, if they saw it.

I spotted it before you mentioned it here, so good work.

[GlassBeadGame]

Der Jimbo's WikiEN-l response to Kamm's "ignorant ranting" has been added to the Kamm article! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Kamm will certainly read this. And if I know Kamm, he'll make it his business to follow it up with a heap of mud and arrows aimed at Der Jimbo's direction. Kamm's also someone who knows his way round a courtroom, and likes a challenge. I couldn't imagine a better match. Kamm vs Der Jimbo. Two of the most detestable internet "celebrities" flapping at each other for our pleasure. It's a no lose situation. Long may it continue and flourish.

By the way, is it me or is Der Jimbo getting more and more intolerant?

In case noone noticed Grace Note aka Dr Zen commented on Kamm's article.

I commented too, mentioning BADSITES and WR. Probably really infuriated the clique, if they saw it.

I spotted it before you mentioned it here, so good work.

I think Jimbo just showed up, knife in hand, to an intellectual gunfight.

[blissyu2]

In case noone noticed Grace Note aka Dr Zen commented on Kamm's article.

Yep.

"It is quite as conceivable that an early version of an entry in Wikipedia will be written by someone who knows the subject, and later editors will dissipate whatever value is there."


This is very true, and particularly so if you replace the word "editors" with "well-meaning but clueless schoolboys".

"Wikipedia seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices."

This is almost its greatest flaw. But you'll never get Jimbo to agree! He thinks that articles become stable by consent, and is not clear that they become stable because the most committed editors will shout down and harass those who are not committed enough.

Dr Zen, Brisbane, Australia

[thekohser]

Der Jimbo's WikiEN-l response to Kamm's "ignorant ranting" has been added to the Kamm article! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Kamm will certainly read this.

Strange, the night of Jimbo's WikiEN-l comment, I copied and posted it as a comment on the Times Online article itself. For some reason, the Times didn't post my comment. Maybe I did something wrong, or maybe they rejected it as hearsay, since I was purporting what Jimbo had said.

Greg

[Kato]

Der Jimbo's WikiEN-l response to Kamm's "ignorant ranting" has been added to the Kamm article! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Kamm will certainly read this.

Strange, the night of Jimbo's WikiEN-l comment, I copied and posted it as a comment on the Times Online article itself. For some reason, the Times didn't post my comment. Maybe I did something wrong, or maybe they rejected it as hearsay, since I was purporting what Jimbo had said.

Greg

It appears that Kamm has seen Jimbo's response somewhere (presumably his WP article) and has registered it on his blog. Kamm provides the same link as yourself Greg, so as the first external poster of the link, you should take some credit for it eventually arriving on Kamm's lap. Kamm's response is underwhelming, and I'm hoping for more vitriol in the future.

Kamm:
In my Times column yesterday I described Wikipedia as a pernicious influence on intellectual life. You can read here the response of Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's founder and guru, to my argument.

Typically, Kamm is such a loathed figure that various bloggers have leapt to Der Jimbo's defence, here, here, and here.

[Jonny Cache]

Der Jimbo's WikiEN-l response to Kamm's "ignorant ranting" has been added to the Kamm article! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Kamm will certainly read this.

Strange, the night of Jimbo's WikiEN-l comment, I copied and posted it as a comment on the Times Online article itself. For some reason, the Times didn't post my comment. Maybe I did something wrong, or maybe they rejected it as hearsay, since I was purporting what Jimbo had said.

Greg

It appears that Kamm has seen Jimbo's response somewhere (presumably his WP article) and has registered it on his blog. Kamm provides the same link as yourself Greg, so as the first external poster of the link, you should take some credit for it eventually arriving on Kamm's lap. Kamm's response is underwhelming, and I'm hoping for more vitriol in the future.

Kamm:

In my Times column yesterday I described Wikipedia as a pernicious influence on intellectual life. You can read here the response of Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's founder and guru, to my argument.

Typically, Kamm is such a loathed figure that various bloggers have leapt to Der Jimbo's defence, here, here, and here.

This is quite obviously just the Quaalude Prelude. I can almost hear the strains of the FugueU2Buddy! warming up.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Kato]

This is quite obviously just the Quaalude Prelude. I can almost hear the strains of the FugueU2Buddy! warming up.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

Perhaps we should rally the WR troops, put pegs on our noses, and rush to Kamm's defence on the various response blogs. Posting links to WR and so on? The least we could do is stir the pot a bit and encourage Kamm to come back fighting.

[Cedric]

Typically, Kamm is such a loathed figure that various bloggers have leapt to Der Jimbo's defence, here, here, and here.

It may be, as Kato indicates, that these blog responses were predictable, but "Skipper's" comments are so asinine that I could not let it go by without comment:

Uhmmmmm--you have NEVER found anything you knew to be "wrong" on Wikipedia?? EVER??? Obviously, you have spent rather little time on WP, or you restrict your viewing to a very particular type of article (Pokemon articles, perhaps). I was active as an editor on WP for some 16 months, and in that time I often found things on WP I knew to be wrong, or so incomplete as to be quite misleading. I may not have found such things every day, but certainly often enough that it was in no wise unusual. My suggestion would be that the next time you are possessed of an urge to plant a wet one on Jimbo's ass, you at least familiarize yourself with what you are commenting on.

--Cedric

It's up on the blog now (Greg Kohs has the comment ahead of mine). Let's see how long they stay there. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)