| |
|
  |
 Wikipedia Culture : How Like A Cult, Single Mad Belief? Mental Cul-De-Sac? |
|
|
| Peter Damian |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
Eric Barbour's experience needs spelling out, because it is fundamental, and explains why Wikipedia is a cult. All cults have a single belief which is completely mad. Everything is they believe is quite logical and rational, except for the single mad belief. Marxists have the thing about the explanation of history. Scientologists have the 'Thetan' theory of the origin of evil.
All the evil things that a cult does can be explained by their belief in this single mad thing.
In the case of Wikipedia, the mad belief is that good articles arise from the efforts of hundreds or thousands of individual nameless editors. This is despite all evidence to the contrary that each good article is the work of one or two editors who have special or unique expertise in their subject area.
This explains all the evil that has arisen. The cult belief naturally irritates the editors who have contributed the good articles. They get no special status on the project. Look at the way Giano has been treated. It also explains the obsession with 'civility'. Clearly there are problems at the moment (witness Giano again). But the obvious explanation has to be ruled out, because it contradicts the cult belief. Therefore the explanation has to be 'incivility'. Incivility is not the symptom of the Wikipedia problem, it is the cause of it. Therefore good editors must be evicted, because they are harming the project. They can be replaced, because the progress of the encylopedia depends not on individuals, but the wisdom of the crowd. And they must be replaced, because their uncivil behaviour is preventing this progress.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| UseOnceAndDestroy |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Moderators
Posts: 568
Joined:
Member No.: 4,073
|
The cult analogy has been raked over many times, but I reckon its always worth looking at in the light of current events. The "single mad belief" thing is pedestrian, and would lead you to classify most organisations with supernatural belief as cults. I mean, come on - guy nailed to cross comes back to life? Taking your example of scientology, that's a lot more than a single mad belief, its a whole lifestyle full of them, from the bizarre misuse of vitamins to the whole "engram/thetan" delusion. Any serious attempt I've seen to describe the essentials of a cult tends to focus not on what the members believe, but on how they behave, and its fascinating to reflect on the list that generally emerges: an internal political system exercising power over devotees; a leader claiming spiritual or material wisdom and being the subject of adoration for infallibility; dogmatic inflexibility; emphasis on recruitment/proselytizing; creation and use of front groups to carry out part of the organisation's mission; emphasis on obtaining wealth and on member donations; desire to obtain external political influence; sexual/emotional manipulation, " love-bombing"; censorship and attempts to control members' access to external discourse; efforts to prevent or recover dropouts; paranoia; disallowing of humour aimed at the group, its leader or its doctrines. Wikipedia? Cult-like? Nah, no evidence at all... |
|
|
|
|
|
| wikiwhistle |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,928
Joined:
Member No.: 3,953
|
This is my favoured description of what makes a group destructive, or a 'cult', it's actually a topic I was interested in very much at one point. As UseOnce says, it often focuses on a charismatic leader, and exploitation of members in various ways. They tend to volunteer a lot of their time. I don't remember seeing this particular description before from Rick Ross (whose forum I used to frequent a lot) though I probably did:- http://www.rickross.com/warningsigns.html If you will bear with me, when it comes to Wikipedia, so much of it applies (except -so far- perhaps the religious elements), it is worth considering here " Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader. 1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability. 2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry. 3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement. 4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions. 5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil. 6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances. 7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader. 8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough". 9. The group/leader is always right. 10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.
Ten warning signs regarding people involved in/with a potentially unsafe group/leader. 1. Extreme obsessiveness regarding the group/leader resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration. 2. Individual identity, the group, the leader and/or God as distinct and separate categories of existence become increasingly blurred. Instead, in the follower's mind these identities become substantially and increasingly fused--as that person's involvement with the group/leader continues and deepens. 3. Whenever the group/leader is criticized or questioned it is characterized as "persecution". 4. Uncharacteristically stilted and seemingly programmed conversation and mannerisms, cloning of the group/leader in personal behavior. 5. Dependency upon the group/leader for problem solving, solutions, and definitions without meaningful reflective thought. A seeming inability to think independently or analyze situations without group/leader involvement. 6. Hyperactivity centered on the group/leader agenda, which seems to supercede any personal goals or individual interests. 7. A dramatic loss of spontaneity and sense of humor. 8. Increasing isolation from family and old friends unless they demonstrate an interest in the group/leader. 9. Anything the group/leader does can be justified no matter how harsh or harmful. 10. Former followers are at best-considered negative or worse evil and under bad influences. They can not be trusted and personal contact is avoided." This post has been edited by wikiwhistle: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(UseOnceAndDestroy @ Fri 4th April 2008, 10:39am)  The "single mad belief" thing is pedestrian, and would lead you to classify most organisations with supernatural belief as cults. There's been plenty of philosophical debate on the question of when a religious cult becomes an established religion. Hopefully it's not the point at which it achieves tax-exempt status, because WP already has that... Anyway, I think the "single mad belief" idea is perfectly valid. My only question would be, if you look at some of the other questionable, and possibly "mad," beliefs that are regularly bandied about on WP, are they in support of the "wisdom of crowds" Big Lie misconception, or do they merely augment it? For example: Objectivist fundamentalism is a valid conceptual framework for a general informational reference. It is possible to develop a completely objective or "neutral" description of practically everything that exists, so create a software model that forces people to try, but also gives casual readers the impression that success has been achieved in each case, even if it hasn't. Free content is an end in itself. The copyright system is "bloated" and "corrupt"; therefore, nobody should ever have to pay for anything they read or listen to ever again. Copy, plagiarize, or even steal if necessary. Morality is "irrelevant." Everything is relative, and situational ethics "don't work," so the only workable system is one based on rules, except that the rules may be changed or reinterpreted to fit any given situation. Arbitrary policy (which in practice turns out to be based mostly on preserving the size and influence of the site and its own internal power structure) therefore trumps traditional (non-relativist) morality. Given that "wisdom of crowds" is the Guiding Principle™, in those three (and it's by no means an exhaustive list) you have a working concept, an ever-elusive goal, and a solution to the individual-conscience problem. All you need now is a logo, and you're all set! |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jonny Cache |
|
τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined:
Member No.: 398
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 4th April 2008, 1:56pm) QUOTE(UseOnceAndDestroy @ Fri 4th April 2008, 10:39am)
The "single mad belief" thing is pedestrian, and would lead you to classify most organisations with supernatural belief as cults.
There's been plenty of philosophical debate on the question of when a religious cult becomes an established religion. Hopefully it's not the point at which it achieves tax-exempt status, because WP already has that … Anyway, I think the "single mad belief" idea is perfectly valid. My only question would be, if you look at some of the other questionable, and possibly "mad," beliefs that are regularly bandied about on WP, are they in support of the "wisdom of crowds" Big Lie misconception, or do they merely augment it? For example: Objectivist fundamentalism is a valid conceptual framework for a general informational reference. It is possible to develop a completely objective or "neutral" description of practically everything that exists, so create a software model that forces people to try, but also gives casual readers the impression that success has been achieved in each case, even if it hasn't. Free content is an end in itself. The copyright system is "bloated" and "corrupt"; therefore, nobody should ever have to pay for anything they read or listen to ever again. Copy, plagiarize, or even steal if necessary. Morality is "irrelevant." Everything is relative, and situational ethics "don't work," so the only workable system is one based on rules, except that the rules may be changed or reinterpreted to fit any given situation. Arbitrary policy (which in practice turns out to be based mostly on preserving the size and influence of the site and its own internal power structure) therefore trumps traditional (non-relativist) morality. Given that "wisdom of crowds" is the Guiding Principle™, in those three (and it's by no means an exhaustive list) you have a working concept, an ever-elusive goal, and a solution to the individual-conscience problem. All you need now is a logo, and you're all set! This looks like a very fruitful discussion — and by their fruits ye shall know them — I've got too much on my plate right now to join in, but maybe I will make a meta-thread to collect some previous thoughts. One of the things that keeps coming to mind is the kinship between con artists and cult leaders — the idea that a genuine cult leader is like a conman who has conned himself along with his marks or followers into buying his line. Con artists and cult leaders alike rely on tapping a prior stratum of uncritical belief that their flocks really, really want to believe, more than they desire reality itself. Jonny (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(dtobias @ Fri 4th April 2008, 12:12pm)
I don't think that explains all of the WikiClique behavior... if the core belief is that everybody is interchangeable and replaceable, then how come certain people (like Slim Virgin and JzG) get enormous deference despite their incivility and abuses, on the grounds of their supposed great contributions to the project?
They aren't getting defference on the basis of their enormous WRITING contributions. They're getting deference on the basis of their enormous administrative contributions. Does anybody imagine that JzG or Slimey is an expert on anything at all, in real life? QUOTE(wikiwhistle @ Fri 4th April 2008, 3:59pm) This is my favoured description of what makes a group destructive, or a 'cult', it's actually a topic I was interested in very much at one point. As UseOnce says, it often focuses on a charismatic leader, and exploitation of members in various ways. They tend to volunteer a lot of their time. I don't remember seeing this particular description before from Rick Ross (whose forum I used to frequent a lot) though I probably did:- http://www.rickross.com/warningsigns.html If you will bear with me, when it comes to Wikipedia, so much of it applies (except -so far- perhaps the religious elements), it is worth considering here " Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader. 1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability. 2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry. 3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement. 4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions. 5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil. 6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances. 7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader. 8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough". 9. The group/leader is always right. 10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.
Ten warning signs regarding people involved in/with a potentially unsafe group/leader. 1. Extreme obsessiveness regarding the group/leader resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration. 2. Individual identity, the group, the leader and/or God as distinct and separate categories of existence become increasingly blurred. Instead, in the follower's mind these identities become substantially and increasingly fused--as that person's involvement with the group/leader continues and deepens. 3. Whenever the group/leader is criticized or questioned it is characterized as "persecution". 4. Uncharacteristically stilted and seemingly programmed conversation and mannerisms, cloning of the group/leader in personal behavior. 5. Dependency upon the group/leader for problem solving, solutions, and definitions without meaningful reflective thought. A seeming inability to think independently or analyze situations without group/leader involvement. 6. Hyperactivity centered on the group/leader agenda, which seems to supercede any personal goals or individual interests. 7. A dramatic loss of spontaneity and sense of humor. 8. Increasing isolation from family and old friends unless they demonstrate an interest in the group/leader. 9. Anything the group/leader does can be justified no matter how harsh or harmful. 10. Former followers are at best-considered negative or worse evil and under bad influences. They can not be trusted and personal contact is avoided." Worth pointing out that the Nation of Islam in the late 50's and early 60's was spot on for all of this. Their leader got nailed for sex stuff, but they tried to cover it up. Malcolm X got kicked out for defying authority by saying politically incorrect stuff about the JFK assassination, and spent what was to be the rest of his life in WR-like struggles with his parent association (they killed him about a year later). That famous pic of him looking out the window with a machine gun is not meant to be one illustrating his stuggles with crackers-- he had it taken as a warning to Nation of Islam member trying to firebomb his house. Anyway, Malcolm X really didn't "grow up" fully until he left his cult and got out into the world. A shame he didn't quite make it for a few years longer, as he was growing fast and would have had much to say. This post has been edited by Milton Roe: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Herschelkrustofsky |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
|
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 4th April 2008, 2:30pm) QUOTE(dtobias @ Fri 4th April 2008, 12:12pm)
I don't think that explains all of the WikiClique behavior... if the core belief is that everybody is interchangeable and replaceable, then how come certain people (like Slim Virgin and JzG) get enormous deference despite their incivility and abuses, on the grounds of their supposed great contributions to the project?
They aren't getting defference on the basis of their enormous WRITING contributions. They're getting deference on the basis of their enormous administrative contributions. I don't know whether that is true, either. I think they are propitiated rather than respected, because of their MMORPG prowess. People suck up to them in hopes of advancement, and out of fear. QUOTE(wikiwhistle @ Fri 4th April 2008, 3:59pm) I don't remember seeing this particular description before from Rick Ross (whose forum I used to frequent a lot) though I probably did:- http://www.rickross.com/warningsigns.html If you will bear with me, when it comes to Wikipedia, so much of it applies (except -so far- perhaps the religious elements), it is worth considering here " Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader. 1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability. 2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry. 3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement. 4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions. 5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil. 6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances. 7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader. 8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough". 9. The group/leader is always right. 10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.
Ten warning signs regarding people involved in/with a potentially unsafe group/leader. 1. Extreme obsessiveness regarding the group/leader resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration. 2. Individual identity, the group, the leader and/or God as distinct and separate categories of existence become increasingly blurred. Instead, in the follower's mind these identities become substantially and increasingly fused--as that person's involvement with the group/leader continues and deepens. 3. Whenever the group/leader is criticized or questioned it is characterized as "persecution". 4. Uncharacteristically stilted and seemingly programmed conversation and mannerisms, cloning of the group/leader in personal behavior. 5. Dependency upon the group/leader for problem solving, solutions, and definitions without meaningful reflective thought. A seeming inability to think independently or analyze situations without group/leader involvement. 6. Hyperactivity centered on the group/leader agenda, which seems to supercede any personal goals or individual interests. 7. A dramatic loss of spontaneity and sense of humor. 8. Increasing isolation from family and old friends unless they demonstrate an interest in the group/leader. 9. Anything the group/leader does can be justified no matter how harsh or harmful. 10. Former followers are at best-considered negative or worse evil and under bad influences. They can not be trusted and personal contact is avoided." I would be cautious in presenting Rick Ross as an authority -- he's a charlatan. His definition may be useful for the purposes of this discussion. QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 4th April 2008, 2:30pm)
Worth pointing out that the Nation of Islam in the late 50's and early 60's was spot on for all of this.
And yet, the NOI accomplished much that was positive -- which is a good example of why these sorts of discussions can be ticklish. I would submit that what WP and NOI have in common is that their potential for playing a constructive role in society has been seriously compromised by corruption and hypocrisy among their leading elites. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Ed Poor |
|
Neophyte
Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined:
Member No.: 5,628
|
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Fri 4th April 2008, 4:15am)
Eric Barbour's experience needs spelling out, because it is fundamental, and explains why Wikipedia is a cult. All cults have a single belief which is completely mad. Everything is they believe is quite logical and rational, except for the single mad belief. Marxists have the thing about the explanation of history. Scientologists have the 'Thetan' theory of the origin of evil.
All the evil things that a cult does can be explained by their belief in this single mad thing.
In the case of Wikipedia, the mad belief is that good articles arise from the efforts of hundreds or thousands of individual nameless editors. This is despite all evidence to the contrary that each good article is the work of one or two editors who have special or unique expertise in their subject area.
This explains all the evil that has arisen. The cult belief naturally irritates the editors who have contributed the good articles. They get no special status on the project. Look at the way Giano has been treated. It also explains the obsession with 'civility'. Clearly there are problems at the moment (witness Giano again). But the obvious explanation has to be ruled out, because it contradicts the cult belief. Therefore the explanation has to be 'incivility'. Incivility is not the symptom of the Wikipedia problem, it is the cause of it. Therefore good editors must be evicted, because they are harming the project. They can be replaced, because the progress of the encylopedia depends not on individuals, but the wisdom of the crowd. And they must be replaced, because their uncivil behaviour is preventing this progress.
Well, this makes sense. I was all but evicted when I challenged the "truth in numbers" aspect of Wikipedia, and of course Larry Sanger left long before that and slammed the door hard quite a few times on his way out. Wikipedia does not trust experts at all. While officially opposing "page ownership" by any one individual, it tolerates and even supports group ownership ("tag-team editing") tacitly. I was taken down a few pegs for daring to balance several different articles - each about a different liberal sacred cow - and was charged, tried and convicted of "tendentious editing". In other words, they said I was promoting a POV - although I was merely trying to mention that (in the world outside Wikipedia's cozy little cult) there are people who believe things contrary to the slant expressed in those articles. (Details available on request.) "Uncle Ed" |
|
|
|
|
|
| Derktar |
|
WR Black Ops
Group: Moderators
Posts: 1,029
Joined:
From: Torrance, California, USA
Member No.: 2,381
|
QUOTE(Ed Poor @ Sun 6th April 2008, 2:31pm) QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Fri 4th April 2008, 4:15am)
Eric Barbour's experience needs spelling out, because it is fundamental, and explains why Wikipedia is a cult. All cults have a single belief which is completely mad. Everything is they believe is quite logical and rational, except for the single mad belief. Marxists have the thing about the explanation of history. Scientologists have the 'Thetan' theory of the origin of evil.
All the evil things that a cult does can be explained by their belief in this single mad thing.
In the case of Wikipedia, the mad belief is that good articles arise from the efforts of hundreds or thousands of individual nameless editors. This is despite all evidence to the contrary that each good article is the work of one or two editors who have special or unique expertise in their subject area.
This explains all the evil that has arisen. The cult belief naturally irritates the editors who have contributed the good articles. They get no special status on the project. Look at the way Giano has been treated. It also explains the obsession with 'civility'. Clearly there are problems at the moment (witness Giano again). But the obvious explanation has to be ruled out, because it contradicts the cult belief. Therefore the explanation has to be 'incivility'. Incivility is not the symptom of the Wikipedia problem, it is the cause of it. Therefore good editors must be evicted, because they are harming the project. They can be replaced, because the progress of the encylopedia depends not on individuals, but the wisdom of the crowd. And they must be replaced, because their uncivil behaviour is preventing this progress.
Well, this makes sense. I was all but evicted when I challenged the "truth in numbers" aspect of Wikipedia, and of course Larry Sanger left long before that and slammed the door hard quite a few times on his way out. Wikipedia does not trust experts at all. While officially opposing "page ownership" by any one individual, it tolerates and even supports group ownership ("tag-team editing") tacitly. I was taken down a few pegs for daring to balance several different articles - each about a different liberal sacred cow - and was charged, tried and convicted of "tendentious editing". In other words, they said I was promoting a POV - although I was merely trying to mention that (in the world outside Wikipedia's cozy little cult) there are people who believe things contrary to the slant expressed in those articles. (Details available on request.) "Uncle Ed" The legendary Ed Poor! Welcome to WR. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Peter Damian |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
Geogre has a nice analysis of this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ned_at_RfAr_IRCQUOTE
Studies have shown what any long-time editor at Wikipedia knows: most articles have a single author. They have multiple editors -- multiple redactors -- but most have a single voice building from scratch. It takes only a moderate commitment to edit, but it takes a serious commitment to write. Writers tend to get passionate about what they're doing, for good or bad. When it's bad, we get the ethnic/political/religious wars. When it's good, we get people who go from articles to AfD to AN to RFA to AN/I, etc. The more people write, the better they get at it. If, though, there is a choke point, if there is an hierarchy, if there is an overuser, then writers will flee. In the loss of original old timers and the passionate authors, you are seeing a new paradigm. Existing articles won't vanish (unless some citation freak or fair use monster gets at them, or some drive-by assessment drive ends up labeling all our FA's "start class"), but you will move from the set up where someone like me is possible, here -- where someone can come at first to fill a gap and then begin joyfully adding all sorts of things -- to one where you get a revolving door of people who get in, do a little, and then go. It will be robbing the project of expertise and there ever being content expertise again. They'll stick around long enough to do a little, to realize who their masters are, and then they'll bail out. It's a zombie like population of mediocrity that's in the future. That's the death of Wikipedia and the co-opting of it by another 4chan, another Slashdot.
This is the heresy I was talking about - that the crowd has no wisdom. QUOTE(Ed Poor @ Sun 6th April 2008, 10:31pm)
Welcome, Ed. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Maju |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 44
Joined:
Member No.: 7,052
|
QUOTE(wikiwhistle @ Fri 4th April 2008, 5:59pm) This is my favoured description of what makes a group destructive, or a 'cult', it's actually a topic I was interested in very much at one point. As UseOnce says, it often focuses on a charismatic leader, and exploitation of members in various ways. They tend to volunteer a lot of their time. I don't remember seeing this particular description before from Rick Ross (whose forum I used to frequent a lot) though I probably did:- http://www.rickross.com/warningsigns.html If you will bear with me, when it comes to Wikipedia, so much of it applies (except -so far- perhaps the religious elements), it is worth considering here " Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader. 1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability. 2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry. 3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement. 4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions. 5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil. 6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances. 7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader. 8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough". 9. The group/leader is always right. 10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.
Ten warning signs regarding people involved in/with a potentially unsafe group/leader. 1. Extreme obsessiveness regarding the group/leader resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration. 2. Individual identity, the group, the leader and/or God as distinct and separate categories of existence become increasingly blurred. Instead, in the follower's mind these identities become substantially and increasingly fused--as that person's involvement with the group/leader continues and deepens. 3. Whenever the group/leader is criticized or questioned it is characterized as "persecution". 4. Uncharacteristically stilted and seemingly programmed conversation and mannerisms, cloning of the group/leader in personal behavior. 5. Dependency upon the group/leader for problem solving, solutions, and definitions without meaningful reflective thought. A seeming inability to think independently or analyze situations without group/leader involvement. 6. Hyperactivity centered on the group/leader agenda, which seems to supercede any personal goals or individual interests. 7. A dramatic loss of spontaneity and sense of humor. 8. Increasing isolation from family and old friends unless they demonstrate an interest in the group/leader. 9. Anything the group/leader does can be justified no matter how harsh or harmful. 10. Former followers are at best-considered negative or worse evil and under bad influences. They can not be trusted and personal contact is avoided." Very scary but real too. Maybe a couple of points can be scrapped off but certainly the clique (not the whole Wikipedia - which it's actually its editors, not so much its managers) acts that way. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Maju |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 44
Joined:
Member No.: 7,052
|
QUOTE(jch @ Wed 16th July 2008, 9:46am) QUOTE(Maju @ Tue 15th July 2008, 3:02am)
Very scary but real too. Maybe a couple of points can be scrapped off but certainly the clique (not the whole Wikipedia - which it's actually its editors, not so much its managers) acts that way.
Managers = admins, WMF staff, both, or some other set? Both. I meant to say that who make Wikipedia are basically the editors. The clique are mostly managers instead. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Docknell |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 226
Joined:
Member No.: 4,321
|
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Fri 4th April 2008, 8:15am)
Eric Barbour's experience needs spelling out, because it is fundamental, and explains why Wikipedia is a cult. All cults have a single belief which is completely mad. Everything is they believe is quite logical and rational, except for the single mad belief. Marxists have the thing about the explanation of history. Scientologists have the 'Thetan' theory of the origin of evil.
All the evil things that a cult does can be explained by their belief in this single mad thing.
In the case of Wikipedia, the mad belief is that good articles arise from the efforts of hundreds or thousands of individual nameless editors. This is despite all evidence to the contrary that each good article is the work of one or two editors who have special or unique expertise in their subject area.
This explains all the evil that has arisen. The cult belief naturally irritates the editors who have contributed the good articles. They get no special status on the project. Look at the way Giano has been treated. It also explains the obsession with 'civility'. Clearly there are problems at the moment (witness Giano again). But the obvious explanation has to be ruled out, because it contradicts the cult belief. Therefore the explanation has to be 'incivility'. Incivility is not the symptom of the Wikipedia problem, it is the cause of it. Therefore good editors must be evicted, because they are harming the project. They can be replaced, because the progress of the encylopedia depends not on individuals, but the wisdom of the crowd. And they must be replaced, because their uncivil behaviour is preventing this progress.
There are many types of cults Harmful cult is something I would apply in the context of WP. Its harmful in terms of misinformation, and harmful what it does to people. Cults such as scientology are harmful psychologically (probably) and they are harmful because they abuse people by taking their resource (time or money) and giving them something back that is harmful (psychological harm). WP is harmful because it recruits people by pushing the "free" label but ignoring the time sink/stress/sociopath alert issue, gets them to contribute a lot of their resources, and indoctrinates them into doing things they would not normally do whilst propagating the bullshit or harmful POVs of any admin who wants to do so. Bullying is one such activity. Another is creating enemies. The sockpuppet enemy is something that they generally do. The signs are up all over WP. WR is another enemy. These are all entities for the purpose of effigy burning. Sockpuppet lists are there to keep other editors in line (they are built by admins to make sure specific POV interests are protected). Cults such as scientology have a specific lingo. WP is the same in this regard. They have obscurantisms that are used to force people or coerce them into falling in line. And when you end up with a suppressive person http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressive_Personwho rebels enough, they end up ejected from the cult and their effigy is usually burnt in full view. So you end up with an organization with a famous evangelist (Cruize or Wales), that has a large following and seemingly reputable setup, but which makes its believers ignore reality, and burn anyone else who doesn't comply. The burning can extend to the presentation of IPs and the gross misrepresentation of statements. WP is more efficient and effective as pushing harmful POV worldwide though. Doc |
|
|
|
|
|
| Mr. Mystery |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 153
Joined:
Member No.: 2,106
|
i wandered into my local public library today, and came across a curious tome entitled "The Ayn Rand Cult," by Jeff Walker. Knowing Jimbo Wales, your friend and mine, claims to subscribe to "Objectivism," i decided to pick it up. While Walker generally seems overly polemic than is necessary, there is a section, entitled "An Ignorant Oracle?," where he discusses how Rand instituted a practice of not reading "books and articles she knew to be evil" (generally anything critical of her) but also that she pontificated as an authority on philosophical and cultural subjects she hadn't read or had limited knowledge of. As he states: QUOTE On what did Rand base her repeated denunciations of western culture? In the last 30 years of her life, Rand read a slew of mystery novels, but little of a rigorous theoretical nature. She followed the culture, recalls Nathaniel Branden, chiefly through The New York Times, television, some movies, and a few plays. Branden claims that reading the newspaper as thoroughly as Rand did and watching as much TV as she did enabled her to draw some fairly meaningful and legitimate conclusions about the culture. p244 Now, I know that sounds like the analytical approach of your average Wikipedian in general, (indeed, that seems to be the operating assumption of Wikipedia itself) but in particular, Walker's depiction of Rand reminds me of everyone's favorite Wikipedian, SV. After reading this, Jimbo's indulgence of SV makes more sense, in that his "Objectivism" would have inoculated in him an abiding respect for completely insane but dogmatic women of conviction, especially if they happen to be attractive right-wing nutjobs. anyone not familiar with the practice of checking the sources that Wikipedia articles link to could assume that Wikipedia's content represented a consensus in reality, like anyone not familiar with philosophy, upon reading Rand, might assume that "Objectivism" represented a legitimate take on philosophy. but it hadn't struck me before now the extent to which Objectivism could explain Wikipedia. Basically, everything wrong with Objectivism is a Wikipedian operating principle. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Mr. Mystery @ Tue 16th September 2008, 2:50pm) I wandered into my local public library today, and came across a curious tome entitled "The Ayn Rand Cult", by Jeff Walker. Knowing Jimbo Wales, your friend and mine, claims to subscribe to "Objectivism", I decided to pick it up. While Walker generally seems overly polemic than is necessary, there is a section, entitled "An Ignorant Oracle?", where he discusses how Rand instituted a practice of not reading "books and articles she knew to be evil" (generally anything critical of her) but also that she pontificated as an authority on philosophical and cultural subjects she hadn't read or had limited knowledge of. As he states: QUOTE
On what did Rand base her repeated denunciations of western culture? In the last 30 years of her life, Rand read a slew of mystery novels, but little of a rigorous theoretical nature. She followed the culture, recalls Nathaniel Branden, chiefly through The New York Times, television, some movies, and a few plays. Branden claims that reading the newspaper as thoroughly as Rand did and watching as much TV as she did enabled her to draw some fairly meaningful and legitimate conclusions about the culture. (p. 244)
Now, I know that sounds like the analytical approach of your average Wikipedian in general, (indeed, that seems to be the operating assumption of Wikipedia itself) but in particular, Walker's depiction of Rand reminds me of everyone's favorite Wikipedian, SV. After reading this, Jimbo's indulgence of SV makes more sense, in that his "Objectivism" would have inoculated in him an abiding respect for completely insane but dogmatic women of conviction, especially if they happen to be attractive right-wing nutjobs. Anyone not familiar with the practice of checking the sources that Wikipedia articles link to could assume that Wikipedia's content represented a consensus in reality, like anyone not familiar with philosophy, upon reading Rand, might assume that "Objectivism" represented a legitimate take on philosophy. but it hadn't struck me before now the extent to which Objectivism could explain Wikipedia. Basically, everything wrong with Objectivism is a Wikipedian operating principle. I'm no particular fan of Ayn Rand, but it would defame even her to say that Jimmy Wales is her disciple. There is not even the shallowest attempt at a coherent philosophy to be found in the Church Of Wikipediology (COW). Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Mr. Mystery |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 153
Joined:
Member No.: 2,106
|
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 16th September 2008, 7:42pm) I'm no particular fan of Ayn Rand, but it would defame even her to say that Jimmy Wales is her disciple. There is not even the shallowest attempt at a coherent philosophy to be found in the Church Of Wikipediology (COW). Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) aw, give him his due. he might not make it as an encyclopedianist or even a rationalist, but Jimbo could be the next L. Ron Hubbard! |
|
|
|
|
|
| Docknell |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 226
Joined:
Member No.: 4,321
|
QUOTE(Mr. Mystery @ Wed 17th September 2008, 5:10am) QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 16th September 2008, 7:42pm) I'm no particular fan of Ayn Rand, but it would defame even her to say that Jimmy Wales is her disciple. There is not even the shallowest attempt at a coherent philosophy to be found in the Church Of Wikipediology (COW). Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) aw, give him his due. he might not make it as an encyclopedianist or even a rationalist, but Jimbo could be the next L. Ron Hubbard! Mmm, register WP as a religion for the tax breaks? Now there's an idea! Doc |
|
|
|
|
|
| GlassBeadGame |
|
Dharma Bum
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
|
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 17th September 2008, 6:42am) QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 17th September 2008, 8:38am)
I am surprised that something very much like a religion, consciously asserting itself as such, has not arisen on Wikipedia. I don't mean a mere send up of a religion, but something more serious. This is an almost irresistible "social mod" on a MMORPG that is as large and flexible as Wikipedia has become. I think that some of what Moulton attempts smacks of this type of thing. Giano worship also points in this direction but only in an rudimentary manner. He needs a more dramatic "departure and return" drama than petty transitory blocks and bans before he can hope to rapture his children up into the clouds of the internet.
What part of Assume Good Faith did you not Accord Genu-Flection? Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) The old religion of "God-King" never had much magic and that has altogether played out at this point. I mean some kind of new religion that develops on wiki in opposition to The Cult of the God-King. Probably will have some progressive and reform aspects, but would amount to a deepening of the role playing game nature of the site. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 17th September 2008, 9:02am) QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 17th September 2008, 6:42am) QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 17th September 2008, 8:38am)
I am surprised that something very much like a religion, consciously asserting itself as such, has not arisen on Wikipedia. I don't mean a mere send up of a religion, but something more serious. This is an almost irresistible "social mod" on a MMORPG that is as large and flexible as Wikipedia has become. I think that some of what Moulton attempts smacks of this type of thing. Giano worship also points in this direction but only in an rudimentary manner. He needs a more dramatic "departure and return" drama than petty transitory blocks and bans before he can hope to rapture his children up into the clouds of the internet.
What part of Assume Good Faith did you not Accord Genu-Flection? Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) The old religion of "God-King" never had much magic and that has altogether played out at this point. I mean some kind of new religion that develops on wiki in opposition to The Cult of the God-King. Probably will have some progressive and reform aspects, but would amount to a deepening of the role playing game nature of the site. The phenomenon of scientism is one of those topics that falls within the study of inquiry, so it is something that I had been examining long before I ever encountered its manifestations among certain cabals of Wikipediots. Now, the very few articles on politics or religion or their surrounding arenas of discussion that I ever visited in Wikiputia were enough to tell me that no good could ever come of the unsound wiki-φury I found there, so I never ran into what some folks call the ID Cabal in all its full array and greater glory, but I do know the type from elsewhere in Wikipedia and from long acquaintance elsewhere in the real world. There are people who know what scientific inquiry really demands of one who would live a life of inquiry, and there are people who worship the Flash-Frozen Idols Of Science for the same reason that these same people would have worshipped this or that ecclesiastical power in former times, to wit, or not, simply because it's the Biggest Bully On The Block at the present time. These fairweather friends of shiny science will desert science-in-the-rough just as soon as the going gets tough. In case you hadn't noticed, the going is beginning to get tough … Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Fri 4th April 2008, 4:15am)
All cults have a single belief which is completely mad.
Everything they believe is quite logical and rational, except for the single mad belief.
All the evil things that a cult does can be explained by their belief in this single mad thing.
In the case of Wikipedia, the mad belief is that good articles arise from the efforts of hundreds or thousands of individual nameless editors. This is despite all evidence to the contrary that each good article is the work of one or two editors who have special or unique expertise in their subject area.
This explains all the evil that has arisen. The cult belief naturally irritates the editors who have contributed the good articles. They get no special status on the project. Look at the way Giano has been treated. It also explains the obsession with "civility". Clearly there are problems at the moment (witness Giano again). But the obvious explanation has to be ruled out, because it contradicts the cult belief. Therefore the explanation has to be "incivility". Incivility is not the symptom of the Wikipedia problem, it is the cause of it. Therefore good editors must be evicted, because they are harming the project. They can be replaced, because the progress of the encylopedia depends not on individuals, but the wisdom of the crowd. And they must be replaced, because their uncivil behaviour is preventing this progress.
I am skeptical of the idea that "all the evil things that a cult does can be explained by their belief in this single mad thing", and I certainly don't think that "everything they believe is quite logical and rational, except for the single mad belief". But the strategy known as Unifying The Manifold Of Senseless Irrationalities (UTMOSI) under a Sole, Unique, Mad Belief (SUMB) is still worth trying, even if only for the mental exercise, and even if the attempt does not succeed completely. PD's candidate for the SUMB is the belief that "good articles arise from the efforts of hundreds or thousands of individual nameless editors". Let us examine that suggestion, and let us see if we can think of other mad beliefs that share in e-mitting the observed spectrum of Wiki-Induced Knowledge Impairments (WIKI's). Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
There is indeed a Single Mad Belief, but it's hardly unique to Wikipedia. I have another name for it. I call it Humankind's Original Logic Error ( HOLE), because it dates all the way back to the Dawn of Civilization. This is a particularly stubborn misconception to flush down the toilet, as it's an error in mathematical reasoning. I estimate that 95% of Homo Schleppians still have a HOLE in their head. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 6th October 2008, 11:24pm) There is indeed a Single Mad Belief, but it's hardly unique to Wikipedia. I have another name for it. I call it Humankind's Original Logic Error ( HOLE), because it dates all the way back to the Dawn of Civilization. This is a particularly stubborn misconception to flush down the toilet, as it's an error in mathematical reasoning. I estimate that 95% of Homo Schleppians still have a HOLE in their head. You've said as much before, in pretty much the same words, and it's still not making much sense to me. Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| GlassBeadGame |
|
Dharma Bum
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
|
I think the central aspect of a cult is that it is hostile to members developing independent spheres of influence and support. A healthy well adjusted person will have a number of places they can turn for psychological and social sustenance. They have marriages, families, work, school, churches, community activities, social life, political parties, sports etc. They are not only numerous but independent in the sense of not have complete or extensive overlap of the persons involved. If any one or two of these independent spheres fail the healthy person can rebound because many other aspects of there life and identity remain intact.
This pluralism of support has the effect of providing sources of new information and "reality checks." As Jon indicated, a cult will not provide these sources and bizarre ideas may be accepted for lack alternatives or testing.
I believe that best indicator of a cult is hostility toward other spheres. Does Wikipedia evidence this hostility? To the extent it does "cult" may be a productive model. Otherwise "addiction" or "game" might have more value.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Fri 6th March 2009, 10:34am)
The research that I had long been pursuing into the subject of Inquiry in general had in those days begun to link up with the literature on Critical Thinking, and so it seemed to me that one of the factors involved in this Cultist Act was a kind of Cul-De-Sac, a cognitive blind alley or mental dead end — literally — that diminished the capacity for Critical Reflective Thinking (CRT) on the part of the members of the group.
Critical thinking needs to be encouraged, and there are all kinds of mad beliefs of various groups (call them whatever you like) which would not survive relentless application of {{fact}} = "citation needed here." And of course that gets you into epistemological arguments, but they're inescapable anyway, and we may as well start on them immediately. Too many groups are lazy and rely on "scripture" or some "revealed and unquestionable truths" from some Master, and they encourage a type of damaged thinking. Naturally this is one reason why so many of these groups are religious, since the "I have a pipeline to God Almighty" idea is a very convenient way to shut off debate (if you can get anybody to believe you on that, plus believe in God or Gods, plus believe these God or Gods are always Correct, Truthful, and Perfectly Understood....). Every group has Masters, but you rarely find the worst pathology in those where people seriously ask themselves "Say, do you suppose the Master Himself is Full of Shit (WP:MHFOS) on this issue?" Essay needed. But our problems don't end there, because there are beliefs which are not based on prediction or future observation, which aren't subject to epistemology as commonly understood. A lot of ethics and aesthetics goes here, and there are lots of not-necessarily-pragmatic political ideologies which go here, and a lot of special interest private clubs, too. Music appreciation. LEGO clubs. Scouting. Time for one example. You join a chess club. It has rules, and chess itself has rules. But you don't want to play by the rules, but new rules that you like better, and which you think makes a faster and more exciting and creative game. You say "Look, do it my way. Pretty soon everybody will be playing the new chess and like it better, and old chess, which dragged ass, will be forgotten." Members of the Chess Club are outraged. Mighty fights begin. Schisms are in the works! And by the way, this crazy scenario has already happened in chess. The game we play now is not the same as the one of 500 years ago. The new rules for how the Queen should move did take over, and are now the only ones most people know and use. Wikipedia is a maddening collection of all these kinds of debates. There are epistemological ones. There are meta-epistemological ones. There are political ones about aesthetics and ethics. And there are completely arbitrary ones like what card game we're going to play now, or how the Queen should move. But on those, we have to come to some agreement before we play. For me the key ingredient in not getting trapped in this stuff is a meta-rule which says that you have to be very careful about how tightly you believe ANY propositions. Hopefully, if you mature, you'll get to the point where you are less conservative and start to wonder if anything is up for grabs. (This rarely happens, though-- often the arc of a life finds people less likely to think this way the older they get). But perhaps the Master is full of shit, and so is his Little Red Book, or the Torah or Qur'an or Book of Mormon he supposedly wrote down. Perhaps this or that scientiific "law" will be disproven, or (at best) found to be only a limiting special case of a more general law. We may change our minds about abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, gun ownership, gay marriage, or (God help us) Indian Casinos. Perhaps we're tired of Texas Hold 'Em and want to play straight stud or even blackjack. Maybe we like the Mad Queen chess, and maybe not. The ticket is always in remembering how we got here, and the fact that we won't be here forever. So experiment. Change your mind. Try something new. I am starting to sound like a graduation speaker again. But think like that, and spend too much time talking about it, and nearly any Club (your church, your political party, your interactive encyclopedia) will eventually decide that you should leave, due to being a disruptive influence and possible evil, too. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif) But that is the price for avoiding the kind of pathology we're talking about here. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) A shame, but there it is. -- Emerson |
|
|
|
|
|
| EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
It only takes one aggressive, bipolar personality to create a cult. If he (and make no mistake, 90+% of cult leaders are men) manages to find a weakness in the logical substructure of an average person's personality, he will screw his toxic ego into that crack until it splits wide open. Since there are always plenty of people with weak personalities, there are always opportunities for cultmakers. I'm reading this book right now. Make no mistake--Bill Gates would have gone nowhere, if he had not hired a crazed, amoral screaming asshole like Ballmer to run the company. This is a guy who says things like QUOTE "Fucking Eric Schmidt is a fucking pussy. I'm going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to fucking kill Google." and gets away with it, because Microsoft has thousands of dedicated drones who have fallen into their ego-cracks, whereupon Ballmer jumped in on top of them. I bet you didn't know the following: Ballmer's father Fritz was a fascinating (demented) character in his own right. He was Swiss, a translator at the Nuremberg war trials, skipped out on paying an ex-wife and kid alimony and child support, had a criminal record AND was fired by the US tribunal for "misconduct". Bullshit must run in that family. Steve Ballmer's second cousin was the late comedienne Gilda Radner. Both his parents died of lung cancer after a lifetime of chain-smoking. He dropped out of Stanford to join Microsoft. (so, does a college degree mean a lifetime of wealth and joy? Apparently not.) He speaks perfect French because his family spent 2 years in Brussels. He went to the same school and had the same teacher as Robin Williams. Ballmer is a VERY smart man. But he's also an obvious bipolar personalty, and uncontrollably aggressive. That's why he's one of the world's richest people. His brains and his education had very little to do with it. Right place, right time, insanely aggressive, manipulative and sleazy. Despite his complex personality and history, he's mostly famous for his sweaty tantrums and screaming matches. Don't believe me? Go to YouTube and type "Steve Ballmer" into the search box. Sounds like L. Ron Hubbard to me. Or Jim Jones, or Adi Da, or Marshall Applewhite, or any number of others. The framework of the cult's beliefs are apparently of secondary concern. What is most important is the aggressive manipulation of weak personalities by a con-man leader. Scientology was doubly blessed. After Hubbard died, his Poodle Boy took over. Think such con-men are easy to oppose? Think their half-baked policies can be reversed in a twinkling? Read about what happened to the Cult Awareness Network. How do you "encourage critical thinking", when you're confronted with a Steve Ballmer? Screaming threats, sweating profusely, and throwing chairs, like he does? This post has been edited by EricBarbour: |
|
|
|
|
|
| GlassBeadGame |
|
Dharma Bum
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
|
QUOTE(Kato @ Sat 7th March 2009, 6:48pm) QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 7th March 2009, 10:15pm) Make no mistake--Bill Gates would have gone nowhere, if he had not hired a crazed, amoral screaming asshole like Ballmer to run the company.
Was Ballmer a pioneer in the IT Leader as Cult-Leader motif? I've seen a few extracts of Microsoft and Apple presentations over the years, and they give off a wholly unusual stench. Unlike normal corporate gatherings. The cult around Jimbo seemed similar in style. This is something Kelly Martin probably knows most about. Read Fire in the Valley. Cult influence was rife in the first round of IT development. Lots of TM, EST, Scientology. I suppose even some more reasonable threads such as GNU, PARC and The Well could be seen as having some cult aspects. |
|
|
|
|
|
| emesee |
|
ban me
Group: Tanked
Posts: 764
Joined:
From: aww
Member No.: 8,586
|
It seems a bit to secular to be labeled a cult, or "new religious movement". Group think seems a bit more apt, perhaps. Certainly, this is something that would certainly seem likely to be present within a "cult". But then again, is atheism and secularism just another form of theological belief/faith? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/shrug.gif) So maybe... |
|
|
|
|
|
| EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 7th March 2009, 5:00pm) Read Fire in the Valley. Cult influence was rife in the first round of IT development. Lots of TM, EST, Scientology. That reminds me---everywhere you looked in Silicon Valley around 1980, you'd find new companies....run by graduates of Werner Erhard's various self-help courses, or one of the innumerable offshoots thereof (Lifespring, Landmark, Hoffman, etc. etc.) Most of which have been criticized for, if not sued for, cultlike behaviour..... |
|
|
|
|
|
| Herschelkrustofsky |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
|
QUOTE(emesee @ Sun 8th March 2009, 10:29pm) But then again, is atheism and secularism just another form of theological belief/faith? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/shrug.gif) Atheism si, secularism no. I have a suggestion for how to answer the ever-popular question of "what is a cult?" I think many of the typical definitions are inadequate because they would make Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King into cult leaders. Obviously, we assume that a cult is harmful to its adherents, which makes it different than a "movement." Presumably it is harmful because it involves regimentation of thinking that is harmful to cognition. Therefore, a good test of whether a movement is a cult would be whether or not its adherents have a sense of humor. If the sense of humor is gone, that indicates cognitive damage, because humor is typical of the higher cognitive (i.e., non-logical) functions of the mind. (Moulton, feel free to jump in an argue that computers can tell good jokes.) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 9th March 2009, 10:45am)
I have a suggestion for how to answer the ever-popular question of "what is a cult?" I think many of the typical definitions are inadequate because they would make Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King into cult leaders. Obviously, we assume that a cult is harmful to its adherents, which makes it different than a "movement". Presumably it is harmful because it involves regimentation of thinking that is harmful to cognition. Therefore, a good test of whether a movement is a cult would be whether or not its adherents have a sense of humor. If the sense of humor is gone, that indicates cognitive damage, because humor is typical of the higher cognitive (i.e., non-logical) functions of the mind. (Moulton, feel free to jump in an argue that computers can tell good jokes.)
Maybe, but not sure-fire, since there remains the ever-poopular rationalization, "I Believe It Because It's Absurd" (IBI BIA). Still, comedy is classically said to depend on aesthetic distance, and the ability to stand back and look at the passing show in comparative context from multiple perspectives is one of the cognitive skills or intellectual virtues that is necessary to CRT. Jon Awbrey |
|
|
|
|
|
| Herschelkrustofsky |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
|
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 9th March 2009, 7:58am) QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 9th March 2009, 10:45am)
Therefore, a good test of whether a movement is a cult would be whether or not its adherents have a sense of humor. If the sense of humor is gone, that indicates cognitive damage, because humor is typical of the higher cognitive (i.e., non-logical) functions of the mind.
Maybe, but not sure-fire, since there remains the ever-poopular rationalization, "I Believe It Because It's Absurd" (IBI BIA). Things that are absurd are not automatically funny. If that were the case, many Monty Python skits would be funny to non-stoners. Real humor involves an element of truth. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 9th March 2009, 11:11am) QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 9th March 2009, 7:58am) QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 9th March 2009, 10:45am)
Therefore, a good test of whether a movement is a cult would be whether or not its adherents have a sense of humor. If the sense of humor is gone, that indicates cognitive damage, because humor is typical of the higher cognitive (i.e., non-logical) functions of the mind.
Maybe, but not sure-fire, since there remains the ever-poopular rationalization, "I Believe It Because It's Absurd" (IBI BIA). Things that are absurd are not automatically funny. If that were the case, many Monty Python skits would be funny to non-stoners. Real humor involves an element of truth. Well, I hardly said that. Absurdity, Comedy, Humor — these words point to complex phenomena, and it hardly pays to pretend any varieties of facile equations among them without a searching examination of their complexions. Humor is sometimes turned to the purposes of defense. "Sometimes" is "frequently" in the viscous vicinity of Wikipedia. There are of course times when we need our defenses, but sooner or later we usually have to face the emotions we're defending against — or risk a turn to tragedy. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif) Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
QUOTE(The Theatre of the Absurd @ Martin Esslin) Eugène Ionesco: Theatre and Anti-TheatreThe technical inventiveness Eugène Ionesco displays in trying to achieve his end [The Theatre of the Absurd] is truly astonishing. In The Bald Prima Donna alone, his first and in many ways simplest play, Alain Bosquet has isolated no fewer than thirty-six "recipes of the comic," ranging from the negation of action (i.e. scenes in which nothing happens), loss of identity of characters, the misleading title, mechanical surprise, repetition, pseudo-exoticism, pseudo-logic, abolition of chronological sequence, the proliferation of doubles (i.e. a whole family all called Bobby Watson), loss of memory, melodramatic surprise (the maid says, "I am Sherlock Holmes"), coexistence of opposing explanations for the same thing, discontinuity of dialogue, and the raising of false expectations, to purely stylistic devices like cliché, truism, onomatopoeia, Surrealist proverbs, nonsense use of foreign languages, and complete loss of sense, the degeneration of language into pure assonance and sound patterns. Sound familiar, Jon? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 9th March 2009, 1:32pm) QUOTE(The Theatre of the Absurd @ Martin Esslin) Eugène Ionesco: Theatre and Anti-TheatreThe technical inventiveness Eugène Ionesco displays in trying to achieve his end [The Theatre of the Absurd] is truly astonishing. In The Bald Prima Donna alone, his first and in many ways simplest play, Alain Bosquet has isolated no fewer than thirty-six "recipes of the comic", ranging from the negation of action (i.e. scenes in which nothing happens), loss of identity of characters, the misleading title, mechanical surprise, repetition, pseudo-exoticism, pseudo-logic, abolition of chronological sequence, the proliferation of doubles (i.e. a whole family all called Bobby Watson), loss of memory, melodramatic surprise (the maid says, "I am Sherlock Holmes"), coexistence of opposing explanations for the same thing, discontinuity of dialogue, and the raising of false expectations, to purely stylistic devices like cliché, truism, onomatopoeia, Surrealist proverbs, nonsense use of foreign languages, and complete loss of sense, the degeneration of language into pure assonance and sound patterns. Sound familiar, Jon? I started to write a response to this, but got the nagging feeling I'd written it already several times before. So I searched the site instead, and sure enough, here it is: QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sun 2nd December 2007, 12:48pm) Life/Art
Lie/Fart Parsing Is All In Reeding BardologyThe mechanics of selling tickets to mass quantities of theatre goers will frequently dictate our plays to imitate life but only up to point — typically a point near the end, where The Muse-Ick Man gets the Muse and escapes his deserted justice by the breadth of a feather on the breath of a theos ek mechanes, magically placating even the most stub-born Iowanischer to save his tar-and-feathering for another day. But everyone knows how it really goes, so the cautionary tale is not wholly obscured by its cheerful wrap-up. Jon Awbrey |
|
|
|
|
|
| Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(emesee @ Tue 10th March 2009, 1:33am) You all know. I think we all have seen that poster about how wikis are about LOVE and people giving eachother high fives, and SHARING. So then why is there all this talk about CULTS. zomg (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) (IMG: http://wikipediareview.com/img/wpkiddieposter.jpg)I gave this poster thing a lot of thought recently, and like many things that I give too much thought to, I came to the conclusion that the whole thing was - unintentionally, of course - quite brilliant in its own way. I mean, consider what was probably the intended demographic, and the effect Ms. Beesley was trying to achieve. Firstly, Wikipedia has to appeal to children in order to survive. It must find ways to get their "wiki ideal" into the heads of the young before they develop critical thinking abilities, and especially before they find themselves in a position where they have to work for a living. Ideally, it should also occur before they begin to fully understand the value of money. Second, Wikipedia can't appear to be wealthy and powerful to people who are being asked to volunteer. Therefore, a slick, professionally-designed, intellectually coherent graphic presentation will almost always be a bad idea - a successful WP recruitment poster should look like something the Sunday School teacher drew up during class to show the kids how (insert name of church/denomination here) wants to spread "love" and make their lives just that much happier. And if the kids are slightly older, the unabashed primitivism of the poster might easily make them think the person presenting it is simply too stupid or brainwashed to answer any sort of intelligent question on the subject of how the organization (in this case, WP) can actually do that, and what the potential downsides are for the marks. Third, and perhaps most importantly, a person making a promotional presentation about WP must also deal with the problem of "adults in attendance" - in other words, a typical adult who may be sitting in on the presentation will have better critical thinking ability, and is more likely to see through whatever slogans and imagery are being used to "sell" the product. Using a childish-looking, nonsensical scrawl actually solves this problem - the adults see this and think, "well, this is obviously supposed to appeal to kids, so I don't really need to think about what, if anything, this poster is trying to say. I can just sit here in the back and smile bemusedly at the kids, like adults are supposed to do in these situations." In other words, by using primitivism, the poster takes full advantage of the fact that adults are usually far more self-conscious than children are. It might also be said that people who are familiar with computers, including children, are more likely to assume that any presentation made by someone representing an internet company will be accompanied by a reasonably attractive graphic or two, since they're likely to know how easy such things are to produce. The fact that the attractive graphics are not forthcoming might actually serve to confound their expectations, confuse them, and possibly cause them to think, "Hey, this isn't an internet company at all... what the heck is it, exactly?" And that's exactly what WP wants them to think. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 11th March 2009, 1:44pm) QUOTE(emesee @ Tue 10th March 2009, 1:33am) You all know. I think we all have seen that poster about how wikis are about LOVE and people giving eachother high fives, and SHARING. So then why is there all this talk about CULTS. zomg (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) I gave this poster thing a lot of thought recently, and like many things that I give too much thought to, I came to the conclusion that the whole thing was — unintentionally, of course — quite brilliant in its own way. I mean, consider what was probably the intended demographic, and the effect Ms. Beesley was trying to achieve. Firstly, Wikipedia has to appeal to children in order to survive. It must find ways to get their "wiki ideal" into the heads of the young before they develop critical thinking abilities, and especially before they find themselves in a position where they have to work for a living. Ideally, it should also occur before they begin to fully understand the value of money. Second, Wikipedia can't appear to be wealthy and powerful to people who are being asked to volunteer. Therefore, a slick, professionally-designed, intellectually coherent graphic presentation will almost always be a bad idea — a successful WP recruitment poster should look like something the Sunday School teacher drew up during class to show the kids how (insert name of church/denomination here) wants to spread "love" and make their lives just that much happier. And if the kids are slightly older, the unabashed primitivism of the poster might easily make them think the person presenting it is simply too stupid or brainwashed to answer any sort of intelligent question on the subject of how the organization (in this case, WP) can actually do that, and what the potential downsides are for the marks. Third, and perhaps most importantly, a person making a promotional presentation about WP must also deal with the problem of "adults in attendance" — in other words, a typical adult who may be sitting in on the presentation will have better critical thinking ability, and is more likely to see through whatever slogans and imagery are being used to "sell" the product. Using a childish-looking, nonsensical scrawl actually solves this problem — the adults see this and think, "well, this is obviously supposed to appeal to kids, so I don't really need to think about what, if anything, this poster is trying to say. I can just sit here in the back and smile bemusedly at the kids, like adults are supposed to do in these situations." In other words, by using primitivism, the poster takes full advantage of the fact that adults are usually far more self-conscious than children are. It might also be said that people who are familiar with computers, including children, are more likely to assume that any presentation made by someone representing an internet company will be accompanied by a reasonably attractive graphic or two, since they're likely to know how easy such things are to produce. The fact that the attractive graphics are not forthcoming might actually serve to confound their expectations, confuse them, and possibly cause them to think, "Hey, this isn't an internet company at all … what the heck is it, exactly?" And that's exactly what WP wants them to think. By Gorgias, I think you really nailed it as far as this Wiki-Pinup goes. This goes to some of what I was trying to suss out on another thread about the Exploitation of Affiliation Needs and Isolation Fears. Jon (IMG: http://wikipediareview.com/stimg9x0b4fsr2/1/folder_post_icons/icon9.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| NotARepublican55 |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 242
Joined:
Member No.: 15,925
|
QUOTE(dtobias @ Fri 4th April 2008, 6:12am)
I don't think that explains all of the WikiClique behavior... if the core belief is that everybody is interchangeable and replaceable, then how come certain people (like Slim Virgin and JzG) get enormous deference despite their incivility and abuses, on the grounds of their supposed great contributions to the project?
How do workplace managers get away with treating their employees like dirt every day, yet they can have an employee formally disciplined for wearing the wrong shade of khakis? If you're in a position of official authority in a project, company, etc then you have a lot more leeway when it comes to "proper conduct" than the average Joe does. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
We've been seeing some examples recently of what happens when a Dyed In The Wool Over His Eyes Disciple (WP:DITWOHED) begins to feel his madness slipping away from him, to wit, the Coming On Feebly Crisis Of Faith (WP:COFCOF) that could lead on to sanity — if only in a select few isolated cases — but most likely won't, more likely throwing the True True Believer into a rabid paroxysm of WP:DENYALL and revivaled attempts to stuff his head back up the fold. Not A Pretty Picture Indeed (WP:NAPPI)Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Avirosa |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 87
Joined:
Member No.: 22,979
|
At the risk of dragging this thread into the realms of the boringly prosaic – calling Wikipedia a cult , was always a rather lazy attribution. The key component of cultic groups which distinguishes them from non cultic groupings is the existence of some form of coercivity to ‘belong’ that extends beyond normal social pressures. Odd beliefs and practices don’t make a cult, a group of people who all believe in the toxicity of airplane contrails and meet weekly to share their observations of contrails is not a cult. A group of contrail watchers that meets weekly where admittance is allowed only to those who swear to kill any group member found to be a CIA infiltrator, very probably is a cult. For some other useful distinctions between cults and non cults see : http://www.csj.org/studyindex/studycult/study_marine.htm Wikipedia does have worryingly cult like characteristics at its system level and maybe there’s some basis for describing it as a demi-cult, an internet phenomenon where the lack of any realworld interplay between adherents (and especially between adherents and the priesthood) prevents the realisation of the full cult potential. For those who think Wikipedia could still make it alongside Scientology and Amway, watch out for an increase in closed door events such as ‘editor seminars’, ‘wikipedian trainings’ and ‘visualisations for wikipedians’. A.virosa |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Avirosa @ Fri 23rd July 2010, 7:10am) At the risk of dragging this thread into the realms of the boringly prosaic — calling Wikipedia a cult was always a rather lazy attribution. The key component of cultic groups which distinguishes them from non cultic groupings is the existence of some form of coercivity to ‘belong’ that extends beyond normal social pressures. Odd beliefs and practices don’t make a cult, a group of people who all believe in the toxicity of airplane contrails and meet weekly to share their observations of contrails is not a cult. A group of contrail watchers that meets weekly where admittance is allowed only to those who swear to kill any group member found to be a CIA infiltrator, very probably is a cult. For some other useful distinctions between cults and non cults see : http://www.csj.org/studyindex/studycult/study marine.htm Wikipedia does have worryingly cult like characteristics at its system level and maybe there’s some basis for describing it as a demi-cult, an internet phenomenon where the lack of any realworld interplay between adherents (and especially between adherents and the priesthood) prevents the realisation of the full cult potential. For those who think Wikipedia could still make it alongside Scientology and Amway, watch out for an increase in closed door events such as ‘editor seminars’, ‘wikipedian trainings’, and ‘visualisations for wikipedians’. A.virosa You don't know them vewwy well, do ye? Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
Attachment is the Root of All Suffering --Buddhist TenetThe main motivator for subscribing to the tenets of a cult is to gain a sense of belonging and to avoid ostracism. The desire to belong, and the fear of ostracism establishes the attachment that Buddhism asserts is the root of all suffering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
Well, it seems to me that Mr. Virosa was merely agreeing with the thread title in stating that Wikipedia is like a cult, not an actual cult, unless we use the term "cult" very loosely. (Admittedly, we have many members who prefer to do just that!)
Of course, I wouldn't say the "cult-like" tag is a "lazy attribution" any more than the MMORPG tag is, or the "revenge platform" tag, or any number of other terms that are applied to Wikipedia. I'll grant that it's lazier than "ad hoc ochlocracy," because most people have to look up the word "ochlocracy" (if not "ad hoc" as well), which makes them cranky, putting the tagger into the position of having to defend the tag against cranky people.
Nevertheless, even I generally try to avoid saying "it's a cult" flat-out, since for one thing it's needlessly insulting to cults, and for another it belittles the efforts of deprogrammers, who often spend days, weeks, even months getting cult members' minds working again. Deprogramming a Wikipedian might take an equal (or even greater) amount of effort, but it's probably easier to keep a person away from a website than from a group of people they've been living and/or praying with in the real world. Particularly if the latter have been using sex as a bonding strategy - everyone knows Wikipedians don't do much of that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Avirosa |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 87
Joined:
Member No.: 22,979
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 24th July 2010, 7:33am)
Well, it seems to me that Mr. Virosa was merely agreeing with the thread title in stating that Wikipedia is like a cult, not an actual cult, unless we use the term "cult" very loosely. (Admittedly, we have many members who prefer to do just that!)
Oh thank goodness for that, I thought I was doomed to be an offender of the WR codex which demands that all true believers in the evilness of Wikipedia must affirm that “Wikipedia is a cultâ€. I agree that “like a cult (+ some definition of how)†is different to “is a cult†and it’s that latter proposition that particularly aggrieves me because of the intellectual paucity that supports it. Unless we are going down the humptydumpty route – “words mean whatever I want them to mean etcâ€, then ‘cult’ is something subject to some reasoned definition, my preference would be to start with that used by academics working in a relevant field, for example those to be found listed here: http://www.icsahome.com/Calling Wikipedia a cult as a jokey bit of shorthand (lazy attribution) is fine, but to keep repeating it or demand that it be treated as an unassailable proposition, is to obfuscate the real character of Wikipedia. It also has the effect of reducing the seriousness of what ‘cults’ actually are, after all if Wikipedia is a cult, cults really can’t be a problem right ? This process is furthered with references like “keep drinking the coolaidâ€, again neat jokey shorthand, but the origin of which is the murder/suicide of 912 human beings including the murder of 287 children. Of course time passes and the cultural reference of past horrors diminishes in seriousness – holocaust can now get used in all sorts of trivial ways, although most reasonable people will on reflection think it not appropriate to reduce a term synonymous with genocide to a mere hyperbolism. If Wikipedia really is a cult, then it should be possible to tease out all the characteristics that are cult like and compare that collection of characteristics with those found in entities which are unequivocally ‘cults’. My argument is that without 'the coercion to belong', whatever else may be cult like about Wikipedia, it is not, and cannot be ‘a cult’, at least in terms that would be considered meaningful to the Sociologists and Psychologists that have studied cultic groups. A.virosa |
|
|
|
|
|
| Peter Damian |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
Well what about this http://ragesoss.com/blog/2010/07/13/wikimania-2010 then. The author is admitting that the critics have the 'reasonable-sounding' arguments, but that the Wikipedians 'emotionally' win a landslide. "Wikimedians are the awesome-est people in the world". It's that wholly unself-critical attitude to the group ethos that is one of the characteristics of a cult. Another aspect is the way that even good long-term contributors are symbolically ostracised from the group such as here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mk5384 by defacing their memory. There's a sense in which a user page is a little house of yours on the project. Plastering it with these banners is the cyberspace equivalent of bulldozing your house or placing a white cross on it or something. You can't define a set of necessary or sufficient conditions for a social construct like 'cult'. All you can get is a family resemblance between different types of cult. From the site you linked to http://icsahome.com/infoserv_respond/faq_whatisacult.aspSee the following. Other characteristics "A cult is an ideological organization, held together by charismatic relationships, and demanding high levels of commitment. " "exploitatively manipulative and abusive to members" "Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished" "The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society." "The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group " "The most loyal members (the “true believersâ€) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group." Other characteristics of cults are not so characteristic of Wikipedia: "Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s)." Except of course for 'denunciation sessions', which you can find any day on ANI. And what about this? QUOTE Part of the control of information consists in prohibiting communication between an apostate (a person who has been expelled from the cult) and another member of the same cult. In this way members will not know the reasons for which the excommunicate left the cult." http://www.cephas-library.com/mind_control.htmlAbsolutely. That's why talk pages and email are blocked for any Wiki apostate. This post has been edited by Peter Damian: |
|
|
|
|
|
| privatemusings |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 214
Joined:
Member No.: 4,306
|
'Wikipedia Culture : How Like A Cult' - quite alot, I think. ....but a very passive aggressive one, which seems to me may be as inversely damaging as your own self-esteem / confidence / stability etc. actually - I'd be interested to see what folk here think of this exchange - I felt that it was a bit too close to discouraging any dissent, but then I'm involved, sensible feedback would be valued :-) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
QUOTE(privatemusings @ Sat 24th July 2010, 5:16am) 'Wikipedia Culture : How Like A Cult' - quite alot, I think.
....but a very passive aggressive one, which seems to me may be as inversely damaging as your own self-esteem / confidence / stability etc. More like Spastic-Aggressive if you ask me. Then again, it's probably better not to ask me.QUOTE(privatemusings @ Sat 24th July 2010, 5:16am) Actually - I'd be interested to see what folk here think of this exchange - I felt that it was a bit too close to discouraging any dissent, but then I'm involved, sensible feedback would be valued :-) In my neck of the woods, WMAU sounds like an AM radio station call sign. Which brings up this parody, based on the most famous radio station jingle of all time. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
Moderator's Note. The title that Peter Damian originally chose to open this topic, as recorded on this page, was “Why Wikipedia Is A Cult : The Single Mad Beliefâ€. The title was admirable enough, and no doubt expresses its author's intent in a much less waffly way, but I modified it for a couple of reasons. - The “why†construction is ambiguous —
- He could be meaning to discuss why Wikipedia qualifies as a cult, that is, examining the reasons it deserves cult status.
- He could be meaning to discuss why Wikipedia developed into a cult, that is, inquiring into the causes of its culthood.
- I thought a few slight alterations would open up the question a little more, not to mention leave room to insert my own 2¢.
In light — or mostly in heat — of the ensuing discussion, I'm thinking I may change the title again, perhaps to something like this: - How Do I Cult Thee? Let Me Cult The Ways …
Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Avirosa |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 87
Joined:
Member No.: 22,979
|
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 24th July 2010, 9:54am) Well what about this http://ragesoss.com/blog/2010/07/13/wikimania-2010 then. The author is admitting that the critics have the 'reasonable-sounding' arguments, but that the Wikipedians 'emotionally' win a landslide. "Wikimedians are the awesome-est people in the world". It's that wholly unself-critical attitude to the group ethos that is one of the characteristics of a cult. Another aspect is the way that even good long-term contributors are symbolically ostracised from the group such as here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mk5384 by defacing their memory. There's a sense in which a user page is a little house of yours on the project. Plastering it with these banners is the cyberspace equivalent of bulldozing your house or placing a white cross on it or something. You can't define a set of necessary or sufficient conditions for a social construct like 'cult'. All you can get is a family resemblance between different types of cult. From the site you linked to http://icsahome.com/infoserv_respond/faq_whatisacult.aspSee the following. Other characteristics "A cult is an ideological organization, held together by charismatic relationships, and demanding high levels of commitment. " "exploitatively manipulative and abusive to members" "Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished" "The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society." "The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group " "The most loyal members (the “true believersâ€) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group." Other characteristics of cults are not so characteristic of Wikipedia: "Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s)." Except of course for 'denunciation sessions', which you can find any day on ANI. And what about this? QUOTE Part of the control of information consists in prohibiting communication between an apostate (a person who has been expelled from the cult) and another member of the same cult. In this way members will not know the reasons for which the excommunicate left the cult." http://www.cephas-library.com/mind_control.htmlAbsolutely. That's why talk pages and email are blocked for any Wiki apostate. Yeah I thought all those things applied to Wikipedia, so at face value Little Jimmy Wales has bequeathed something which has lots of ‘cult potential’. But there are still questions to ask – for instance how many other social groupings would share that combination of characteristics found in cults, given that they are characteristics which are not exclusive to cults ? And so far as I can tell there’s no example of a social grouping that has achieved the application of the coercive behaviours necessary to achieve the internal cohesion of a ‘cult’, without substantial real world interaction – prayer meetings, high pressure sales ‘seminars’, initiation rites etc. Now maybe Web 2. can actually produce an environment in which the coercion (and reciprocal coercivity) can be exercised, but IMO the sensory load needed to support the coercive experience just isn’t deliverable in a virtual medium. For a flight of pure fancy as to what would be needed I’d fall back on a few Wild Palms |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
By Way Of Orientation (WR:BWOO)
coerce vt [L coercēre, fr. co- + arcēre to shut up, enclose — more at ARK](15c)- : to restrain or dominate by force 〈religion in the past has tried to ～ the irreligious — W.R Inge〉
- : to compel to an act of choice 〈～ citizens into doing what needs to be done〉
- : to force or bring about by force or threat 〈～ the compliance of the rest of the community — Scott Buchanan〉
— Webster's
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
