The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> In praise of Wikimedia Strategy, Chris Grams, hypocrite
thekohser
post Sun 14th March 2010, 2:58pm
Post #1


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



This is a particularly predictable publication.

Chris Grams is a partner at New Kind, a strategic communications, design, and innovation firm. Previously, Chris spent 10 years at Red Hat, where he played a "key role" in building the Red Hat brand and "culture". (See where this is headed?) Mr. Grams also blogs about brand, "community", and culture at Dark Matter Matters.

If you need to reach Chris Grams, he asks that you contact him via Twitter. wacko.gif

Also, if you post a comment that is the least bit critical of the Wikimedia Strategy process, Chris Grams will delete it for you.

Even though his blog post praises the "strategic planning process in all of its transparent, open glory".

hmmm.gif

Do you think there's some sort of school or clinic where these free culture Kool-Aid drinkers go to get the skepticism scooped right out of their heads, only to be replaced with a healthy clump of hypocrisy?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
John Limey
post Sun 14th March 2010, 5:22pm
Post #2


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 387
Joined: Wed 8th Jul 2009, 3:04pm
Member No.: 12,473



QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 14th March 2010, 2:58pm) *

Do you think there's some sort of school or clinic where these free culture Kool-Aid drinkers go to get the skepticism scooped right out of their heads, only to be replaced with a healthy clump of hypocrisy?


In my experience, these types are actually some of the most skeptical people around, except when it comes to their own pet causes (Wikipedia, Linux, etc.). Thus the same people who are Wikipedia's biggest fan are often the ones who regard everything published by the mainstream media with deep suspicion. I think the skepticism is not removed, but rather transferred from the objects of most people's skepticism (Wikipedia, etc.) to the things of which most people are much less skeptical. The overall amount of skepticism, I think, remains roughly constant.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Sun 14th March 2010, 5:41pm
Post #3


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(John Limey @ Sun 14th March 2010, 1:22pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 14th March 2010, 2:58pm) *

Do you think there's some sort of school or clinic where these free culture {{Unjustly Defamed Brand Name of Disputed Identity Powdered Instant Softdrink (DIPIS) Redacted}} drinkers go to get the skepticism scooped right out of their heads, only to be replaced with a healthy clump of hypocrisy?


In my experience, these types are actually some of the most skeptical people around, except when it comes to their own pet causes (Wikipedia, Linux, etc.). Thus the same people who are Wikipedia's biggest fan are often the ones who regard everything published by the mainstream media with deep suspicion. I think the skepticism is not removed, but rather transferred from the objects of most people's skepticism (Wikipedia, etc.) to the things of which most people are much less skeptical. The overall amount of skepticism, I think, remains roughly constant.


Interesting analysis. I think this is related to one of the things I was trying to say on my TAG Thread.

Jon Image
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kelly Martin
post Sun 14th March 2010, 7:00pm
Post #4


Bring back the guttersnipes!
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined: Sun 22nd Jun 2008, 4:41am
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696



QUOTE(John Limey @ Sun 14th March 2010, 12:22pm) *
In my experience, these types are actually some of the most skeptical people around, except when it comes to their own pet causes (Wikipedia, Linux, etc.). Thus the same people who are Wikipedia's biggest fan are often the ones who regard everything published by the mainstream media with deep suspicion. I think the skepticism is not removed, but rather transferred from the objects of most people's skepticism (Wikipedia, etc.) to the things of which most people are much less skeptical. The overall amount of skepticism, I think, remains roughly constant.
This is consistent with my experience with ideological editors on Wikipedia. Within their area of ideological commitment, they are absolutely convinced of the rectitude of their own positions and brook no deviation of viewpoint whatsoever, while outside of it they tend to exhibit, if anything, a heightened degree of skepticism, often colored with cynicism as well. Thinking of a few of the open-source ideologues I know (outside of Wikipedia) it certainly applies to them as well, so it would surprise me little to see that this thesis holds for Wikipedia zealots as well.

Perhaps the cynicism and skepticism of mainstream beliefs is a reaction to apparent unthinking belief in these things by people who are clearly wrong. Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus, after all.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Mon 15th March 2010, 12:59am
Post #5


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Whoops, I posted about a previous opensource.com editorial here.

Also, I have sent a polite (though rather anti-Wiki) email to Chris Grams and
Jeff Mackanic. Let us see what they have to say after reading commentary that
doesn't look like a WMF press release.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Mon 15th March 2010, 1:01am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Mon 15th March 2010, 4:22pm
Post #6


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



Jeff Mackanic says this about my deleted comment:

QUOTE
Here is some text from the post that was deleted:

Maybe like a glory hole. You see, the head guy of that Strategy circle-jerk
simply removes anything and anyone that doesn't already "fit" in the
predetermined hole that the Wikimedia Foundation's digging itself.


The reason I deleted the post is the terms 'circle-jerk' and 'glory hole'.
The content is fine. It was just that the words 'circle-jerk' and 'glory hole' might be perceived as lewd or profane.

Your other comments are great and add to the value of the site - thank you
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th 10 17, 11:46pm