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!

[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: