Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ News Worth Discussing _ Jimbo Wales vs. Oliver Kamm

Posted by: thekohser

Step 1:
Read this http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2267665.ece?openComment=true 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!

Posted by: Kato

Kamm has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/OliverKamm.

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

QUOTE
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 http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2006/11/neil_clark.html. SV dismisses Clark http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philip_Cross&diff=140585468&oldid=139179704 saying "it would be a stretch to call him a journalist". Presumably her involvement is politically motivated yet again, as Clark is "http://www.neilclark66.blogspot.com/".

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.

Posted by: Jonny Cache

OK on WP —

QUOTE(Oliver Kamm @ The Times, 16 Aug 2007)

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 cool.gif

Posted by: 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"?

Posted by: Jonny Cache

QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 17th August 2007, 12:42am) *

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 cool.gif

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Jimbo @ Earler today)
>"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.

QUOTE
> "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, http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-August/079211.html...)

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? unsure.gif

Posted by: Kato

QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 17th August 2007, 6:12am) *

Maybe Jimbo didn't understand the quote? (Clearly, http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-August/079211.html...)

Yeah. What is David G http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-August/079211.html?

QUOTE(Dave Gerard)
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.

QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 17th August 2007, 6:12am) *

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, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oliver_Kamm&diff=114563854&oldid=114557943. These concerns were about Kamm, and not genuine left winger Gilad Atzmon, who was being http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oliver_Kamm&diff=112093185&oldid=112047808 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.

Posted by: Jonny Cache

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

QUOTE(Kato @ Fri 17th August 2007, 7:32am) *

QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 17th August 2007, 6:12am) *

Maybe Jimbo didn't understand the quote? (Clearly, http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-August/079211.html …)


Yeah. What is David G http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-August/079211.html?

QUOTE(Dave Gerard @ WikiEnList, 16 Aug 2007 UTC 22:37)

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




QUOTE(Oliver Kamm @ The Thames, They R A Changin)

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 cool.gif

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 17th August 2007, 1:12am) *

QUOTE(Jimbo @ Earler today)
>"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:

QUOTE
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


Posted by: Jonny Cache

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 17th August 2007, 10:46am) *

QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 17th August 2007, 1:12am) *

QUOTE(Jimmy Wales @ Wikienlist, 16 Aug 2007 UTC 22:23)

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

This is preposterous.

Source. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/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:

QUOTE(Oliver Kamm @ The Times, 16 Aug 2007)

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 cool.gif

Posted by: jorge

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

Posted by: dtobias

QUOTE(jorge @ Fri 17th August 2007, 7:31pm) *

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.

Posted by: Kato

Der Jimbo's WikiEN-l response to Kamm's "ignorant ranting" has been http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oliver_Kamm&diff=152082961&oldid=151858423 to the Kamm article! 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?

QUOTE(dtobias @ Sat 18th August 2007, 1:58am) *

QUOTE(jorge @ Fri 17th August 2007, 7:31pm) *

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.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Kato @ Sat 18th August 2007, 2:04pm) *

Der Jimbo's WikiEN-l response to Kamm's "ignorant ranting" has been http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oliver_Kamm&diff=152082961&oldid=151858423 to the Kamm article! 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?

QUOTE(dtobias @ Sat 18th August 2007, 1:58am) *

QUOTE(jorge @ Fri 17th August 2007, 7:31pm) *

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.

Posted by: blissyu2

QUOTE(jorge @ Sat 18th August 2007, 10:01am) *

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


Yep.

QUOTE
"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

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Kato @ Sat 18th August 2007, 4:04pm) *

Der Jimbo's WikiEN-l response to Kamm's "ignorant ranting" has been http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oliver_Kamm&diff=152082961&oldid=151858423 to the Kamm article! 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

Posted by: Kato

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 19th August 2007, 4:01pm) *

QUOTE(Kato @ Sat 18th August 2007, 4:04pm) *

Der Jimbo's WikiEN-l response to Kamm's "ignorant ranting" has been http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oliver_Kamm&diff=152082961&oldid=151858423 to the Kamm article! 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 http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2007/08/wikipedia-respo.html. 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.
QUOTE
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, http://skipper59.blogspot.com/2007/08/defence-of-wikipedia-against-oliver.html, http://threescoreyearsandten.blogspot.com/2007/08/kamm-recorder-on-wicked-wikipedia.html, and http://timworstall.typepad.com/timworstall/2007/04/ollie_kamm_on_w.html.

Posted by: Jonny Cache

QUOTE(Kato @ Sun 19th August 2007, 11:12am) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 19th August 2007, 4:01pm) *

QUOTE(Kato @ Sat 18th August 2007, 4:04pm) *

Der Jimbo's WikiEN-l response to Kamm's "ignorant ranting" has been http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oliver_Kamm&diff=152082961&oldid=151858423 to the Kamm article! 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 http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2007/08/wikipedia-respo.html. 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.

QUOTE

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, http://skipper59.blogspot.com/2007/08/defence-of-wikipedia-against-oliver.html, http://threescoreyearsandten.blogspot.com/2007/08/kamm-recorder-on-wicked-wikipedia.html, and http://timworstall.typepad.com/timworstall/2007/04/ollie_kamm_on_w.html.


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

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: Kato

QUOTE

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

Jonny 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.

Posted by: Cedric

QUOTE(Kato @ Sun 19th August 2007, 10:12am) *

Typically, Kamm is such a loathed figure that various bloggers have leapt to Der Jimbo's defence, http://skipper59.blogspot.com/2007/08/defence-of-wikipedia-against-oliver.html, http://threescoreyearsandten.blogspot.com/2007/08/kamm-recorder-on-wicked-wikipedia.html, and http://timworstall.typepad.com/timworstall/2007/04/ollie_kamm_on_w.html.

It may be, as Kato indicates, that these blog responses were predictable, but http://skipper59.blogspot.com/2007/08/defence-of-wikipedia-against-oliver.html that I could not let it go by without comment:
QUOTE
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. tongue.gif

Posted by: Pwok

My e-mail to Kamm and Wales:

It speaks volumes of Jimmy Wales that he would strike such a dismissive, insouciant, arrogant pose in response to your critique of Wikipedia.

There are arguments to be made for its consensus-based approach to knowledge, but to reply with nothing more than a characterization of your piece as "ignorant ranting" well illustrates what I believe to be the intellectual emptiness that lies at the heart of today's emerging digitocracy.

Mr. Wales's responses to Wikipedia's crises and critics betray a shallow and blinkered perspective that quickly finds itself out of its depth when confronted with non-negotiable fact, and opinion based on it. His response, like that common within Wikipedia and other blogs, is to declare the opposing argument "disruptive" and its advocate a "troll," to use phraseology now popular.

I'm with you on the substance, Mr. Kamm: when facts and truth are subject to consensus, conventional wisdom reigns. This is fine until conventional wisdom is at odds with reality, as it frequently is.

Wikipedia has shown itself incapable of dealing with error, be it intentional or otherwise. This is what happens in a consensus-based system. Had Wikipedia existed five centuries ago, it would have told us that the cosmos revolved around the earth and that Copernicus was a troll. Sixty years ago, the German edition would have educated us on the phrenology of the Jewish skull.

Today, Wikipedia's struggle with truth emerges in one place as an insider's falsification of his biography, and elsewhere as the self-interested changing of articles by corporate interests. If that were as far as it went, it could be fixed.

In fact, though, at Wikipedia there are no facts, only agreements. This renders every judgment there inherently political, and over time it will require Bowdlerization of all but the most anodyne material.

Wikipedia's hyper-cautious policy (which must be regarded as something of a sham, in view of the organization's capricious editing and administrative implementation) with regard to "biographies of living persons" reflects its fatal flaw and foreshadows things to come.

According to the "BLP" policy, Wikipedia grants an unusual degree of deference to the living subjects of its articles, effectively blocking negative material and permitting subjects to edit their own biographies. A publisher of true material would never make such accommodations, but since Wikipedia deals in agreement rather than truth, its insiders can never have confidence to stand for fact.

The end result: No serious person can accept Wikipedia as a reliable source of fact. It will always be a collection of shifting opinions of writers, editors, and administrators who, for any number of reasons that might be friendly to fact and truth or not, care enough to persist there.

By casually dismissing this critique as "ignorant ranting," Mr. Wales begs any number of questions.

- Charles Wilson, a/k/a "Pwok," a former Wikipedian

Posted by: Nathan

Very well written.