NYB on The Volokh Conspiracy, Some First Thoughts on Wikipedia Options

[tarantino]

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1242098183.shtml

Ira requests:

I make only one request: that regular Wikipedians who are looking over my shoulder, as well as Wikipedia critics from Wikipedia Review and elsewhere, bear in mind that this is a general-interest audience. Please don't hijack the comment threads with our own internal disputes and debates. No one here wants to read who is a sockpuppet of whom or whether so-and-so's block was fair or not. We have ANI and Wikipedia Review to hash those things out later.

[Jon Awbrey]

Now here's a WikiPediot "Administrator" who is apparently too cowardly even to use his or her "real" pseudonym:

One of the espoused ideals of Wikipedism is often expressed as "Mind the Edits, Not the Editor" — in other words, it is only the value of the content that matters, not the identity of the contributor. This is indeed one of the ways that Wikipediots excuse their use of anonymous sources, the rationalization being that one can always vet the content without having to know the particulars of the person (or bot) who placed it on the page.

Anyone who thinks about it for a second knows this is nonsense in real world terms.

But let us thank the anonymous "administrator" {{citation needed}} Timekeeper for demonstrating how this bit of wiki-preaching works in practice.

Jon Awbrey (his real name), 17 May 2009, 3:16pm

[Somey]

Now here's a WikiPediot "Administrator" who is apparently too cowardly even to use his or her "real" pseudonym...

That's Horologium (T-C-L-K-R-D) , another laissez faire "libertarian" right-winger, using the classic but wait folks he isn't telling you that he's banned from Wikipedia!!! rejoinder.

Zzzzzz...

[dtobias]

another laissez faire "libertarian" right-winger

...not that there's anything wrong with that...

[Somey]

...not that there's anything wrong with that...

Not necessarily, anyway. I shouldn't risk alienating any Volokh Conspiracy readers who may be checking out our helpful little website, but the sad fact of it is, there are a lot of Bush-baby Neocon Republicans out there painting themselves as "Independents" and "Libertarians" so that they can avoid the Bush Stigma™ whilst carrying on the fight for various aspects of the Anti-Obama, Anti-Abortion, Pro-Censorship, Anti-Gay, etc. etc., agenda. If I were one of those real libertarians who were into it before it was "cool," dutifully following the smaller-government, fiscal-responsibility agenda, I would be extremely pissed off about this. Unfortunately, there's probably very little they can really do about it.

Then again, maybe they can turn a few of those people into Ron Paul supporters, by getting them really, really drunk the night before Election Day?

[Jon Awbrey]

… not that there's anything wrong with that …

Not necessarily, anyway. I shouldn't risk alienating any Volokh Conspiracy readers who may be checking out our helpful little website, but the sad fact of it is, there are a lot of Bush-baby Neocon Republicans out there painting themselves as "Independents" and "Libertarians" so that they can avoid the Bush Stigma™ whilst carrying on the fight for various aspects of the Anti-Obama, Anti-Abortion, Pro-Censorship, Anti-Gay, etc. etc., agenda. If I were one of those real libertarians who were into it before it was "cool," dutifully following the smaller-government, fiscal-responsibility agenda, I would be extremely pissed off about this. Unfortunately, there's probably very little they can really do about it.

Then again, maybe they can turn a few of those people into Ron Paul supporters, by getting them really, really drunk the night before Election Day?

I have known some Card-Carrying Conservatives and some Card-Burning Libertarians, but I don't see a lot of either on the Internet. Pseuds of a feather pseud together, I guess.

What see in Wikipedia is neither fish nor fowl but a kind of Permanent Adolescent Philosophy (PAP), and all their Gang Colors and all their Battle Cries amount to the same thing in the end — sucking up to the Biggest Bully On The Block.

Jon Awbrey

[Somey]

I have known some Card-Carrying Conservatives and some Card-Burning Libertarians, but I don't see a lot of either on the Internet. Pseuds of a feather pseud together, I guess.

Count yourself lucky, then! It may be that I encounter more people like that because I'm a businessman (just not a very successful one at the moment), and you're one of these Academia-with-a-capital-"A" guys. But these folks are definitely out there, trust me on that one...

And please folks, don't get me wrong - I have nothing against small-government, fiscal-responsibility conservatives at all, whether or not they call themselves "libertarians." My only beef here is with these people who elected George W. Bush, twice, and now refuse to own up to it, like leopards trying to change their spots overnight. (Bush obviously having nothing to do with small government or fiscal responsibility in any way whatsoever.)

What see in Wikipedia is neither fish nor fowl but a kind of Permanent Adolescent Philosophy (PAP), and all their Gang Colors and all their Battle Cries amount to the same thing in the end — sucking up to the Biggest Bully On The Block.

True... Sometimes I wonder, though, to what extent political ideologues take advantage of simple human nature, or maybe I should say good-natured humanity, to achieve their often-nefarious ends on WP. There's actually a Wikipedia article on something called the Abilene paradox (T-H-L-K-D) that sort of explains what I'm thinking here. At first it will probably seem completely inapplicable, because after all WP'ers argue with each other all the time - that's the whole point of WP, in fact - and yet, putting aside whatever specific issue they're arguing about, they're all pretty much in agreement that their participation there is worthwhile and that they should all continue doing it.

[Jon Awbrey]

I have known some Card-Carrying Conservatives and some Card-Burning Libertarians, but I don't see a lot of either on the Internet. Pseuds of a feather pseud together, I guess.

Count yourself lucky, then! It may be that I encounter more people like that because I'm a businessman (just not a very successful one at the moment), and you're one of these Academia-with-a-capital-"A" guys. But these folks are definitely out there, trust me on that one …

Out there I'm sure they are — I'm just talking about our local garden variety and the fruits of all the blog'n'villas.

I think the dynamic must be something like this. Hooray for Individual Liberty! But Corporations are Individuals. Ergo, Hooray for Corporations! At any rate, this appears to be the "logic" of Randroids. Of course, any corporation that is owned by its workers instead of some Wind-In-The-Hair Aviator-Scarfed Smilin' Jackbooter Pointing The Way To That Shiny-Metal-Bot City On The Hill gets disqualified as a communist abomination.

And stop calling me those Capital "A" names. Just because I spent my whole "adult" life in and out of universities doesn't mean I didn't spend the whole time criticizing establishment ways of doing things — I wanted nothing better than seeing a new way of distributing knowledge succeed.

Hence the irony …

What see in Wikipedia is neither fish nor fowl but a kind of Permanent Adolescent Philosophy (PAP), and all their Gang Colors and all their Battle Cries amount to the same thing in the end — sucking up to the Biggest Bully On The Block.

True … Sometimes I wonder, though, to what extent political ideologues take advantage of simple human nature, or maybe I should say good-natured humanity, to achieve their often-nefarious ends on WP. There's actually a Wikipedia article on something called the Abilene paradox (T-H-L-K-D) that sort of explains what I'm thinking here. At first it will probably seem completely inapplicable, because after all WP'ers argue with each other all the time — that's the whole point of WP, in fact — and yet, putting aside whatever specific issue they're arguing about, they're all pretty much in agreement that their participation there is worthwhile and that they should all continue doing it.

Yep, I spent a week in Abilene one night …

And a not-so-healthy dose of Cognitive Dissonance, too.

Jon (IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/stimg9x0b4fsr2/1/folder_post_icons/icon9.gif)

[Newyorkbrad]

The Wikipedia Signpost has now linked to this thread. Does this mean that WR is now a GOODSITE?

[Jon Awbrey]

The Wikipedia Signpost has now linked to this thread. Does this mean that WR is now a GOODSITE?

It means that WR is in danger of passing from irreverence to irrevelance.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[The Joy]

The Wikipedia Signpost has now linked to this thread. Does this mean that WR is now a GOODSITE?

It means that WR is in danger of passing from irreverence to irrevelance.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

We're slowly becoming more like the Village Pump than the Sewage Treatment Plant, aren't we? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

I would like to think at least that people who come to this forum will look at Wikipedia more closely and think twice about using it as a reference source.

It is still scary to me to think that a website that is the number one site of the number one search engine can have so much power over knowledge and how people assimilate information.

All I know to do as an aspiring librarian is to teach people how to vet and analyze information. Hopefully, they would realize that Wikipedia fails as a reliable source. Still, I'm only one man and not everyone listens to their librarians or teachers, you know? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Maybe Wikipedia Review can help? I don't know. After all this forum's been through last year and early this year, I'm just not sure anymore. I know I've been part of problem by focusing on the gossip and character antics of Wikipedia and not the deeper things, but I just don't know how to steer in the right direction.

It's all too depressing.