The WikiPedia Medium Is The WikiPedia Massage, What Is The Real Purpose Of The WikiProgramme? Options

[Jonny Cache]

Picking up on one of Kato's «Key Questions» and generalizing another:

• What is the root problem in Wikipedia?
• What do all of these episodes we keep watching have in common?

I suggest that the answer will come from pursuing the question:

What is the real purpose of those who control Wikipedia?

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think we have to watch every last episode of the Wikipediot Soap Opera, much less every spin-off like Citzendium, ConservaToryPedia, VergoPedia, AdNauseaPedia that comes down the WikiPike in order to figure out the answer to this question once and for all.

So permit me to extract my most recent mini-manifesto on this score from the pages of the Soap Opera Digest (SOD) � where it is likely to get buried beneath the fray of WhoScrewedWhoToday � and reprint it here.

I keep trying to share what clues I've gathered, but folks at The Wikipedia Review are as just as blind as folks at Wikipedia and all the clueless InterNeuts in the Wowie-Zowie-Web-O-Sphere.

Maybe folks didn't read the same books My Generation did in school and college. The scenario was laid out clearly enough in all of those Prophetically Dystopian novels of my childhood, and the basic principles of media dynamics that are involved in Wikipediac Devolution were all laid out by Marshall McLuhan so long ago that they passed from Archetype to Cliche when I was an Undergrub, and apparently into Oblivion now.

You all keep being distracted by one damn Message after another when you ought to be looking at the kind of Medium that is being so craftily crafted under your very noses.

For example, people on all sides waste so gawdawful much time trying to figure out what side the Cabal is on � when it comes to this or that economic, political, religious, or scientific tiff.

The Cabal is not on any side but the Cabal's side.

Sure, maybe the Cabal is taking the side of North-North-West Eurasia today, but it can just as easily shift to taking the side of Southerly Eurasia any time that it becomes convenient to do so.

What does that mean for the Media Operating Characteristic (MOC) that will selected as their Most Favoured MOC?

It means that their Most Favoured MOC cannot allow itself to get phase-locked forever into any one POV. More precisely, it must be agile enough to shift its phase 180° in a period of time just ε-greater than the modal attention span of the viewing public.

How long is that?

Your Mullage May Vary, but if we look at the US case in the last Dubya-Dubya Police Action, the US media were reporting on the Future Sea Battle for just about 6 months before it started to look downright silly not to go ahead and have it.

Six months is not exactly turning on a dime, and I think that the Powers That Bee are probably trying to get that down to a temporal turning radius ≤ 6 weeks.

For now …

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Moulton]

Wikipedia may well be a confidence game.

But if someone unfamiliar with the story asked me to explain what the con game is, or how it works, I would be hard pressed to provide a coherent answer.

[Jonny Cache]

Wikipedia may well be a confidence game.

But if someone unfamiliar with the story asked me to explain what the con game is, or how it works, I would be hard pressed to provide a coherent answer.

The engine that drives the confidence game is an unrealistic expectation on the part of the mark, typically rooted in unconscious strata of unrenounced fantasies, for example, delusions of entitlement or infantile wishes for glory, love, power, etc. The confidence artist is an expert in reviving whatever unrealistic hopes the mark may harbor and in using their imaginary values to deprive the mark of goods that have real value.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Saltimbanco]

The engine that drives the confidence game is an unrealistic expectation on the part of the mark, typically rooted in unconscious strata of unrenounced fantasies, for example, delusions of entitlement or infantile wishes for glory, love, power, etc. The confidence artist is an expert in reviving whatever unrealistic hopes the mark may harbor and in using their imaginary values to deprive the mark of goods that have real value.

No, Jonny. That's not a con. That's normal business practice.

Wikipedia is about getting volunteers to contribute content. Full stop. No smoke, no mirrors.

That Jimbo Wales and whoever else hopes to profit through their reputation or otherwise through Wikipedia does not dissuade people from thinking that their volunteer contributions will garner them some sort of reward is not a con. Your car insurance salesman is also not likely to tell you that you you'd do better to buy a cheaper policy.

[Jonny Cache]

The engine that drives the confidence game is an unrealistic expectation on the part of the mark, typically rooted in unconscious strata of unrenounced fantasies, for example, delusions of entitlement or infantile wishes for glory, love, power, etc. The confidence artist is an expert in reviving whatever unrealistic hopes the mark may harbor and in using their imaginary values to deprive the mark of goods that have real value.

No, Jonny. That's not a con. That's normal business practice.

Wikipedia is about getting volunteers to contribute content. Full stop. No smoke, no mirrors.

That Jimbo Wales and whoever else hopes to profit through their reputation or otherwise through Wikipedia does not dissuade people from thinking that their volunteer contributions will garner them some sort of reward is not a con. Your car insurance salesman is also not likely to tell you that you you'd do better to buy a cheaper policy.

Now you're just being silly.

Not to mention insulting to anyone who considers personal integrity to be inseparable from "normal business practice".

The distinction between fraud or grift and legitimate business is comprehended by common sense and even by the law.

Of course, advertizers try to exploit the collateral desires of their target market to sell everything from automobiles to beer to cigarettes to deodorant.

But all civilized societies draw the line at unfair practices, however shifting those lines may be over time. And common sense recognizes the features of the confidence game that put it outside the pale of "normal business practice" � the acquisition of goods under false pretences, the breach of promise that consummates the confidence game, and the outrageous disproportion in the real values of the goods exchanged.

No, there is nothing "normal" about that, thank goodness.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Saltimbanco]

Now you're just being silly.

Not to mention insulting to anyone who considers personal integrity to be inseparable from "normal business practice".

The distinction between fraud or grift and legitimate business is comprehended by common sense and even by the law.

Of course, advertizers try to exploit the collateral desires of their target market to sell everything from automobiles to beer to cigarettes to deodorant.

But all civilized societies draw the line at unfair practices, however shifting those lines may be over time. And common sense recognizes the features of the confidence game that put it outside the pale of "normal business practice" � the acquisition of goods under false pretences, the breach of promise that consummates the confidence game, and the outrageous disproportion in the real values of the goods exchanged.

No, there is nothing "normal" about that, thank goodness.

Jonny, you're an academic, yes? You've never really worked in the normal business world. I have, and I have in fact sacrificed a couple potential careers over matters where I thought my employer or its representatives had crossed an ethical boundary.

But letting, and even lightly encouraging, people to believe that they are getting more out of their participation in something than common sense and a little bit of thought would clearly indicate does not generally cross such a boundary. I am myself someone who will always tell someone if they would probably do better stepping away from something that benefits me, and I think that's a better way to live and, in the long run better for me as well. I would say that people who do not do this are not as good as they might be, but I would not say that they are not as good as everyone else has the right to expect them to be.

If there is an outright lie - if Jimbo Wales claimed that someone got tenured based on stuff they'd done in Wikipedia - that's a different matter. But to just nod and grin as someone explains how he expects his Wikipedia contributions will get him tenure, while kind of creepy, is not a con.

This post has been edited by Saltimbanco:

[Jonny Cache]

Jonny, you're an academic, yes? You've never really worked in the normal business world. I have, and I have in fact sacrificed a couple potential careers over matters where I thought my employer or its representatives had crossed an ethical boundary.

But letting, and even lightly encouraging, people to believe that they are getting more out of their participation in something than common sense and a little bit of thought would clearly indicate does not generally cross such a boundary. I am myself someone who will always tell someone if they would probably do better stepping away from something that benefits me, and I think that's a better way to live and, in the long run better for me as well. I would say that people who do not do this are not as good as they might be, but I would not say that they are not as good as everyone else ought to expect them to be.

If there is an outright lie � if Jimbo Wales claimed that someone got tenured based on stuff they'd done in Wikipedia � that's a different matter. But to just nod and grin as someone explains how he expects his Wikipedia contributions will get him tenure, while kind of creepy, is not a con.

I am fighting down the urge to launch a Wodin Boast here. The fact is that I've worked in more different venues than you are likely to guess.

Lucky for everyone it's past my bedtime.

But something to think about for tomorrow is this �

Yes, I have seen academic papers that describe Civilization and its Discontents in terms analogous to One Big Confidence Game. And I suppose there is some sense in that. But common sense has to say what is fair and what is not. It is not fair to use the natural human susceptibility to various types of addiction in order to enslave people. It is not fair to exploit child labor. It is not fair to acquire tax-free educational status while miseducating the uneducated about the kinds of conduct that are expected of responsible citizens in real world societies.

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: