| |
|
  |
 Wikipedia: A Threat To Civil Society, No More Monsieur Nice Guy |
|
|
| SqueakBox |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 293
Joined:
Member No.: 1,202
|
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 18th September 2007, 5:38pm)  No More Monsieur Nice GuyAfter all this time, I get the feeling that many people, even many denizens of The Wikipedia Review, fail to comprehend the magnitude of the threat to Civil Society that is posed by Wikipedia and its ways. And every time I get a glimmer of hope that Wikipedians themselves might just get their ways back on the path to recovery of humane good sense — well, they never fail to dash those hopes back into the mud of what they seem bound and determined to remain. In order that some of you who know me best will understand the change in tactics that I must now undertake, I will try to lay out as clearly as I can why I think that Wikipedia and its ways pose the kind of danger to society that all people of good will must eventually oppose. Jon Awbrey I look forward to that as any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome, Squeak (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/ph34r.gif) Box |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jonny Cache |
|
τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined:
Member No.: 398
|
It is probably easiest for me if I begin with the thoughts that woke me up at 5 o'clock this morning, evidently prompted by my previous night's reading of the evidence presented by SlimVirgin re the Request for Arbitration re what Wikipediots like to call Attack Sites, which thoughts I was consequently moved to try and share with that body on that page, submitting them under the authorship of Name Redacted. That attempt was abended by the usual crowd of Free Speech Abenders, but some trains of thought can be difficult to stop once they get their momentum going, so let me bring it all home to the Rounders of the Roundhouse here. Evidence presented by Name RedactedI have never spoken in one of these proceedings before, so I hope that you will forgive me if I do not know the details of protocol. I am hopeful also that you will be patient with me as I make my sometimes faltering attempts to say my peace. I will try to state my observations plainly and simply. My critics tell me that I sometimes succeed, but it usually takes me several trials to do so. I have inserted my comments at this place because I want to begin by commenting on some of the points raised just above by SlimVirgin. I have to go to the dentist in a little while, but it looks like I have a half an hour, and I will be back later today. Name Redacted 09:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC) I will need to make a few bird's-eye-view observations first, filling in the details later. I believe that the issue of badsites is really just a symptom of a deeper issue that is not being fully addressed in the Wikipedia community. I believe that facing the deeper issue is critical to the future viability of Wikipedia. I suppose everybody says that, but I honestly believe it. Name Redacted 10:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Preliminary questionsSlimVirgin mentions a number of issues that I think are in need of further clarification among the Wikipedian user community before it will be possible to make fair and principled decisions about external links and references. One of these issues concerns the scope of Wikipedian policies like those about Neutrality, Reliability, and Verifiability. The question is, do these policies apply only to article content, or do they apply also to discussion and policy pages like this one? I do not know the answer, and it is my impression that many editors and administrators are confused about this, which is why I am asking the question. Name Redacted 14:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Unhealthy trendsTo be continued … Jon Awbrey This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: |
|
|
|
|
|
| the fieryangel |
|
the Internet Review Corporation is watching you...
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,990
Joined:
From: It's all in your mind anyway...
Member No.: 577
|
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 18th September 2007, 9:10pm) QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Tue 18th September 2007, 4:53pm)
Okay, Jonny, is that your sock or not???
If that's your sock, it's brilliant!
If it's not your sock, it's even bettah!
So, from one Fiery angel to another, what's the straight story here??
(I'm still laughing. JzG, you've been pwned!!)
I neither confirm nor deny my authority over any authorship that I do not personally authorize. But thanks for the occasion to say that — I've been working on it for months. Jon Awbrey If this whole point of this is to be able to say "No more Monsieur Nice Guy", you've got a standing ovation over here! |
|
|
|
|
|
| Joseph100 |
|
Senior Member like Viridae
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 667
Joined:
Member No.: 871
|
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 18th September 2007, 11:38am) No More Monsieur Nice GuyAfter all this time, I get the feeling that many people, even many denizens of The Wikipedia Review, fail to comprehend the magnitude of the threat to Civil Society that is posed by Wikipedia and its ways. And every time I get a glimmer of hope that Wikipedians themselves might just get their ways back on the path to recovery of humane good sense — well, they never fail to dash those hopes back into the mud of what they seem bound and determined to remain. In order that some of you who know me best will understand the change in tactics that I must now undertake, I will try to lay out as clearly as I can why I think that Wikipedia and its ways pose the kind of danger to society that all people of good will must eventually oppose. Jon Awbrey I DO. IF you yell the lie, long enough and hard enough from the highest hill, then the lie becomes the"excepted truth" (see flat earth, and Joseph Goebbels) and the darkness falls where abuse and enslavement become the accepted norm. I believe, wikipedia should be bought down, diminished, and or shown what it really is and why it should never ever be taken as a place of accurate information or pure motive. This post has been edited by Joseph100: |
|
|
|
|
|
| The Joy |
|
I am a millipede! I am amazing!
Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined:
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982
|
QUOTE(Joseph100 @ Tue 18th September 2007, 7:52pm) QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 18th September 2007, 11:38am) No More Monsieur Nice GuyAfter all this time, I get the feeling that many people, even many denizens of The Wikipedia Review, fail to comprehend the magnitude of the threat to Civil Society that is posed by Wikipedia and its ways. And every time I get a glimmer of hope that Wikipedians themselves might just get their ways back on the path to recovery of humane good sense — well, they never fail to dash those hopes back into the mud of what they seem bound and determined to remain. In order that some of you who know me best will understand the change in tactics that I must now undertake, I will try to lay out as clearly as I can why I think that Wikipedia and its ways pose the kind of danger to society that all people of good will must eventually oppose. Jon Awbrey I DO. IF you yell the lie, long enough and hard enough from the highest hill, then the lie becomes the the "excepted truth" (see flat earth, and Joseph Goebbels) and the darkness falls where abuse and enslavement become the accepted norm. I believe, wikipedia should be bought down, diminished, and or shown what it really is and why it should never ever be taken as a place of accurate information or pure motive. Didn't Lenin say something similar? If you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes the truth? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jonny Cache |
|
τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined:
Member No.: 398
|
QUOTE(The Joy @ Tue 18th September 2007, 10:12pm)
Didn't Lenin say something similar? If you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes the truth?
I don't know if it was Vlad or some other Impaler who first proposed the hypothesis, but we can always do the experiment — any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome Nope, it still sounds false as all get-out to me — how about you? Then again, maybe we just didn't repeat the lie long enough. Nevermind, through, there's already a place for that. Jonny (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jonny Cache |
|
τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined:
Member No.: 398
|
Let us revisit the Evidence Presented by SlimVirgin to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee (WAC) in the matter of "Attack Sites", as that was the incident that incited me to take the novel if not indeed virginal step, for me, of trying to Talk To The ArbCom — its's the new Talk To The Hand — under the authorship of Name Redacted. QUOTE Evidence presented by SlimVirginThe controversy over attack sites was created by people who regularly post to those sites. They created a bunch of slippery-slope strawman positions — "the policy means we can't link to the New York Times!!!" — that other Wikipedians mistook as an implication of the real position. Some common sense is needed. The anti-linking position is simply this: Wikipedia should not link to websites set up for the purpose of harassing its volunteers. Harassment in this context refers to cyberstalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence. Even if a website appears not to have been created for that purpose, if a *substantial* amount of its content is devoted to any of the above, it counts as an attack site that should not be linked to anywhere on Wikipedia. The only websites affected are Wikipedia Review, Encyclopedia Dramatica, Wikipedia Watch, AntiSocialMedia, and a webpage run by Nobs01. Users who try to apply it to michaelmoore.com are simply mistaken. Mistaken application of policy need not affect the policy itself: if it did, we'd have no policies, given that they're all misapplied on a daily basis. The anti-linking position needn't undermine content. If any of these sites becomes the focus of stories published by multiple reliable sources, and is therefore added to the main namespace, there would still be no need to link to it — our source for material about a notable website would be the reliable source, not the website itself. Mainstream newspapers writing about newsworthy websites that contain defamation or threats of violence often don't even name them, and they certainly don't offer URLs. Their attitude is "this is news and therefore we're reporting it", rather than "hey, come and have a look!" The important point is that stalkers who create websites for the purpose of scaring our volunteers shouldn't be rewarded by having links to their sites posted by the same project that exposed the volunteer to the stalking in the first place. That is surely a matter of basic common sense and decency. If a rare and unforeseen situation arises where doing so really is necessary, then IAR applies, but those exceptions needn't affect the basic position. Finally, just because we have a policy (written or otherwise) that says these sites shouldn't be linked to doesn't mean that every single instance of such a link must always and immediately be removed, and posters blocked. It's a policy best enforced with a cluestick rather than a sledgehammer. SlimVirgin 03:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC) In view of the evidence that Name Redacted is now and forever blocked by the Jay J.G. known as Jpgordon — incidentally supplying continuing evidence, as if it were ever in short supply, of exactly what kind of "welcome" Wikipedia holds out to "any serious, well thought out criticism of Wikipedia" — I will continue my responses in a Forum where the capacity for critical reason is not yet an altogether lost cause. Jon Awbrey This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Joseph100 |
|
Senior Member like Viridae
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 667
Joined:
Member No.: 871
|
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Thu 20th September 2007, 7:42am) Let us revisit the Evidence Presented by SlimVirgin to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee (WAC) in the matter of "Attack Sites", as that was the incident that incited me to take the novel if not indeed virginal step, for me, of trying to Talk To The ArbCom — its's the new Talk To The Hand — under the authorship of Name Redacted. QUOTE Evidence presented by SlimVirginThe controversy over attack sites was created by people who regularly post to those sites. They created a bunch of slippery-slope strawman positions — "the policy means we can't link to the New York Times!!!" — that other Wikipedians mistook as an implication of the real position. Some common sense is needed. The anti-linking position is simply this: Wikipedia should not link to websites set up for the purpose of harassing its volunteers. Harassment in this context refers to cyberstalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence. Even if a website appears not to have been created for that purpose, if a *substantial* amount of its content is devoted to any of the above, it counts as an attack site that should not be linked to anywhere on Wikipedia. The only websites affected are Wikipedia Review, Encyclopedia Dramatica, Wikipedia Watch, AntiSocialMedia, and a webpage run by Nobs01. Users who try to apply it to michaelmoore.com are simply mistaken. Mistaken application of policy need not affect the policy itself: if it did, we'd have no policies, given that they're all misapplied on a daily basis. The anti-linking position needn't undermine content. If any of these sites becomes the focus of stories published by multiple reliable sources, and is therefore added to the main namespace, there would still be no need to link to it — our source for material about a notable website would be the reliable source, not the website itself. Mainstream newspapers writing about newsworthy websites that contain defamation or threats of violence often don't even name them, and they certainly don't offer URLs. Their attitude is "this is news and therefore we're reporting it", rather than "hey, come and have a look!" The important point is that stalkers who create websites for the purpose of scaring our volunteers shouldn't be rewarded by having links to their sites posted by the same project that exposed the volunteer to the stalking in the first place. That is surely a matter of basic common sense and decency. If a rare and unforeseen situation arises where doing so really is necessary, then IAR applies, but those exceptions needn't affect the basic position. Finally, just because we have a policy (written or otherwise) that says these sites shouldn't be linked to doesn't mean that every single instance of such a link must always and immediately be removed, and posters blocked. It's a policy best enforced with a cluestick rather than a sledgehammer. SlimVirgin 03:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC) In view of the evidence that Name Redacted is now and forever blocked by the Jay J.G. known as Jpgordon — incidentally supplying continuing evidence, as if it were ever in short supply, of exactly what kind of "welcome" Wikipedia holds out to "any serious, well thought out criticism of Wikipedia" — I will continue my responses in a Forum where the capacity for critical reason is not yet an altogether lost cause. Jon Awbrey See a true picture of a typical wikiadminidiot... WE LOVE TO EAT EDITORS.. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jonny Cache |
|
τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined:
Member No.: 398
|
QUOTE(guy @ Tue 18th September 2007, 6:50pm) QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 18th September 2007, 10:26pm)
Well, we don't want to be picking on Guys as a class.
Oh good. That bit about No More Monsieur Nice Guy was just my way of signaling a significant sea-change in my attitude toward Wikipedia. Along with that change in attitude there goes a change in approach. I just wanted to prevent people whose opinions I value from being confused about the fact that I will in future not be playing by the same rules that I played by in the past. Wikipedia is an Online Game that is designed to enculcate its players in a particular belief system. Given Bain's Maxim that a belief is that on which a person is prepared to act, this means that the Game socializes the players who succeed in it to particular ways of acting, forms of conduct, and dispositions to behave in distinctive manners. It is therefore a Training Online Game (TOG) or an Online Game Intended For Training (OGIFT). Beware of Geeks, etc. Next Question. To what Modes Or Forms Of Conduct are the players being entrained? Jon Awbrey This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Joseph100 |
|
Senior Member like Viridae
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 667
Joined:
Member No.: 871
|
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Fri 21st September 2007, 8:44pm) QUOTE(guy @ Tue 18th September 2007, 6:50pm) QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 18th September 2007, 10:26pm)
Well, we don't want to be picking on Guys as a class.
Oh good. That bit about No More Monsieur Nice Guy was just my way of signaling a significant sea-change in my attitude toward Wikipedia. Along with that change in attitude there goes a change in approach. I just wanted to prevent people whose opinions I value from being confused about the fact that I will in future not be playing by the same rules that I played by in the past. Wikipedia is an Online Game that is designed to enculcate its players in a particular belief system. Given Bain's Maxim that a belief is that on which a person is prepared to act, this means that the Game socializes the players who succeed in it to particular ways of acting, forms of conduct, and dispositions to behave in distinctive manners. It is therefore a Training Online Game (TOG) or an Online Game Intended For Training (OGIFT). Beware of Geeks, etc. Next Question. To what Modes Or Forms Of Conduct are the players being entrained? Jon Awbrey g-damn right!!! We should now apply rules of "REAL WORLD" to Wacky World of Wiki Cult Belief System. Or, WWWCBS a. [[US:LAW]] Above all else, the foundation members and servers live in florida and are under the juristions of US law, Civil and Criminal. This is the starting point of Dealing with the WWWCBS. This post has been edited by Joseph100: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Castle Rock |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 358
Joined:
From: Oregon
Member No.: 3,051
|
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 18th September 2007, 10:38am) No More Monsieur Nice GuyAfter all this time, I get the feeling that many people, even many denizens of The Wikipedia Review, fail to comprehend the magnitude of the threat to Civil Society that is posed by Wikipedia and its ways. And every time I get a glimmer of hope that Wikipedians themselves might just get their ways back on the path to recovery of humane good sense — well, they never fail to dash those hopes back into the mud of what they seem bound and determined to remain. In order that some of you who know me best will understand the change in tactics that I must now undertake, I will try to lay out as clearly as I can why I think that Wikipedia and its ways pose the kind of danger to society that all people of good will must eventually oppose. Jon Awbrey A threat to society. I think you are vastly overestimating the relevancy Wikipedia and the internet as a whole has to the majority of people's lives. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jonny Cache |
|
τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined:
Member No.: 398
|
QUOTE(Castle Rock @ Sat 22nd September 2007, 9:42pm)
A threat to society.
I think you are vastly overestimating the relevancy Wikipedia and the internet as a whole has to the majority of people's lives.
Gosh, I hope so. I would love it if I could wake up one day from this waking nightmare and see that my Cassandroid Anxieties were all a bad dream. I remember the time when Spiro Agnew dismissed the waves of protesters that were warning us about the last Vietnam War, calling them all a bunch of Crying Cassandras. The poor jerk did not even seem to realize what he had just said. And here we are back to the failures of public education again. Jon Awbrey This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jonny Cache |
|
τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined:
Member No.: 398
|
In the US, as WE (Da Ppl) like to say, it is the last year of the four-year-long election year, and that means that WE wants to have all the B-Fudding complexities of Life In The Early Turd Millennium ( LITE™) splained to us in 30- 20-10-second soundbytes. All the easier to ignore them ¤ sigh ¤ In that spirit, let me e-deavo ur to re*compress the letter of my text. Wikipedia ∑ε∂↑ in a single acronym: QUOTE
Absolute Terror Toward All Collective Knowledge
ATTACK
Now please don't be confused by the fact that Wikipediots have to gather so much bytage in one place before they burn it — it should be Slap-In-Face obvious to anyone who's awake and paying attention that they are interested solely in controlling the information — neither learning from it nor allowing others to do so. Jon Awbrey This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jonny Cache |
|
τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined:
Member No.: 398
|
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 25th September 2007, 11:51am) QUOTE(Castle Rock @ Sat 22nd September 2007, 9:42pm)
A threat to society.
I think you are vastly overestimating the relevancy Wikipedia and the internet as a whole has to the majority of people's lives.
WP does harm to certain individuals, such as BLP victims, and generally lowers the level of discourse. These effects do not rise to the level of "threat to civil society" in any serious manner. What Wikipedia is a threat to is the encyclopedic project which can only be advanced by scrapping this fundamentally flawed false start. Castle, Glass, and All — I began this thread on the afternoon of 18 September 2007, having just been abashed in my Last Best Attempt at Talking to Wikipedians Human To Human. That day marks a radical change in my perception of Wikipedia. That change has consequences for how I will henceforth speak about Wikipedia and how I will henceforth act in regard to Wikipedia. We must have our fun, our parodies, and keep our robust sense of humor, or else go totally bats in the face of such absurdity as we find in Wikipedia, but let no one be misled — the time for jokes that weaken our stance is over, the time for kid gloves is over, and over for good. At least for me. I do, of course, assume that most Wikipediot Adminion accounts are still operated by humans, but they have repeatedly and successfully convinced me that they are humans who have crossed the line into acting like inhumane robots, and they must be approached and dealt with accordingly. Each of us has to pick his or her own path, of course, but I'm just laying out mine as clearly as I can so that no one will find themselves waylaid by the change of course. Jon Awbrey This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: |
|
|
|
|
|
| WhispersOfWisdom |
|
Lee Nysted
Group: Regulars
Posts: 543
Joined:
Member No.: 2,310
|
In his book about this very topic, "the cult of the amateur", Andrew Keen builds an awesome and well detailed case against our current internet culture, and the devastation it is causing, citing WP as an example, and the long term effects of human beings moving toward the "mean" and mediocre (i.e., where the vast majority of people on earth are simply not experts or masters at anything.) He describes a frightening rude awakening for all of us, albeit, I think, this subject matter is an essential element of many philisophical discussions I have with friends and family. In the field of music, it is becoming more apparent than ever that the vast majority of young people are learning more about following, rather than leading, and it is much easier to simply steal music than pay for it. There are more people learning to play "guitar hero" video games than actual musical instruments. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jonny Cache |
|
τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined:
Member No.: 398
|
QUOTE(WhispersOfWisdom @ Tue 25th September 2007, 1:02pm) In his book about this very topic, "the cult of the amateur", Andrew Keen builds an awesome and well detailed case against our current internet culture, and the devastation it is causing, citing WP as an example, and the long term effects of human beings moving toward the "mean" and mediocre (i.e., where the vast majority of people on earth are simply not experts or masters at anything.) He describes a frightening rude awakening for all of us, albeit, I think, this subject matter is an essential element of many philisophical discussions I have with friends and family. In the field of music, it is becoming more apparent than ever that the vast majority of young people are learning more about following, rather than leading, and it is much easier to simply steal music than pay for it. There are more people learning to play "guitar hero" video games than actual musical instruments. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) These are deep issues, WoW, ones that we've touched on, but just barely, on other threads, and there's so much that I would like to try and say about them, but not sure I can within the focus I'm striving to maintain at present. So a few random thoughts at most … People who appreciate creativity — I used to think everyone did — and who strive to develop a measure of it in this or that area of human endeavor, a much harder trial, naturally enough, know that no one can avoid it and remain truly human. A human being can hardly listen to a song or read a text without having responses that no human being has ever had before. That is one side of the coin. The flip side is that we all have so much in common that there is almost always some way, no matter how difficult to find, of relating one experience to another. Trivialities, I guess, but surprising how often people forget, or wish to deny them. So the question is not one of absolutes, but one of balance, and what balance is due in each endeavor. Wikipedia has lost its balance, and is actively combatting the trimming forces that its good faith contributors do their level best to bring to bear on it. Wikipedia is approaching the point of collapsing in on itself in some regions and flying apart in others. That's too bad, but people who tried to help have had their efforts wasted by forces beyond their calling back. It's time to stand away from the ongoing wreck and shield society from the WikiPetard. Jon Awbrey |
|
|
|
|
|
| SqueakBox |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 293
Joined:
Member No.: 1,202
|
QUOTE(WhispersOfWisdom @ Tue 25th September 2007, 5:02pm) In his book about this very topic, "the cult of the amateur", Andrew Keen builds an awesome and well detailed case against our current internet culture, and the devastation it is causing, citing WP as an example, and the long term effects of human beings moving toward the "mean" and mediocre (i.e., where the vast majority of people on earth are simply not experts or masters at anything.) He describes a frightening rude awakening for all of us, albeit, I think, this subject matter is an essential element of many philisophical discussions I have with friends and family. In the field of music, it is becoming more apparent than ever that the vast majority of young people are learning more about following, rather than leading, and it is much easier to simply steal music than pay for it. There are more people learning to play "guitar hero" video games than actual musical instruments. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) Well the issues are with computing and the interent and wikipedia is merely a symptom though at least more intellectually demanding than say facebook or my space, very popular sites where people (from my middle aged perspective) do precisely nothing. With Microsoft promising us computers that know exactly what we want and give it to us without having to think about it (the only thinking necessary being for those who object having to fight against their own computer's softwares) really these are issues that strike at the heart of where we are going as a society. One of the biggest problems we see, and particularly on wikipedia, is some big-mouthed kid treating a mature adult as if the adult were the kid and the kid the adult, and until that issue is resolved (obviously by not allowing anyone who cannot prove they are 42 to have admin rights) wikipedia will continue to be a magnet for young wannabe trolls who have nothing to lose, neither money nor reputation. Give me one SlimVirgin over 100 messedrockers, essjays and pascal tessones any day, kids and youths who think they are adults without having gone through the experiences that turn individuals into adults are your classic wikipedian trolls, Squeak (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/ph34r.gif) Box |
|
|
|
|
|
| The Joy |
|
I am a millipede! I am amazing!
Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined:
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982
|
I'll admit that I've been editing WP more lately, but I'm hesitant to even try to make major contributions anymore. It amazes me and saddens me that a project like WP which in its infancy held so many promises, but those promises have since been dashed by entrenched and egotistical individuals and a community more obsessed with maintaining a corrupted status quo all to keep those egotistical few happy at the expense of truly good faith contributors and the product of an exemplary reference/encyclopedia. The fact that academics at my grad school see WP as a great and wondrous thing leaves me feeling that many do not look past the positives of Web 2.0 and see the negatives. There are blogs, wikis, podcasts, whatever that are done by competent individuals and communities well-versed in their respected subjects or at least are willing to research and learn about their subject. Even when such individuals and groups come to WP, their efforts can be smashed by one of the aforementioned individuals or their posse. I'm beginning to see WP as more of the US Wild West. The law is sporadic, lawman can be bandits, gangs roam unchecked unless cheesing off the wrong people (i.e. the elite), and its not whether you're right but who you know and what power you possess socially or physically (block powers). I could also see WP as something of feudal Medieval Europe where Jimbo acts like Henry II and his loyal nobles willing to deal harshly with his enemies (i.e Thomas a Beckett). I'm willing to admit there are a few Pat Garretts and Galahads on WP with merit and good morals (not just dealing blindly with policy), but these few can do little to change the poisonous mentality maintained by the current Community and status quo. QUOTE(Mark Twain @ Letters from the Earth)
We are strangely made. We think we are wonderful creatures. Part of the time we think that, at any rate. And during that interval we consider with pride our mental equipment, with its penetration, its power of analysis, its ability to reason out clear conclusions from confused facts, and all the lordly rest of it; and then comes a rational interval and disenchants us. Disenchants us and lays us bare to ourselves, and we see that intellectually we are no great things; that we seldom really know the things we think we know; that our best-built certainties are but sand-houses and subject to damage from any wind of doubt that blows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The Joy |
|
I am a millipede! I am amazing!
Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined:
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982
|
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 25th September 2007, 4:16pm) Speak o' th' Dust Devil — have you seen 3:10 To Yuma yet? Now there's a tale of the Weird Wild West 4U !!! Jonny Cache De Train (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) No, I've heard it really was a letdown for Western fans and, like you said, very weird. However, I hear that Brad Pitt's Jesse James movie is going to be great and be close to historically accurate. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jonny Cache |
|
τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined:
Member No.: 398
|
QUOTE(The Joy @ Tue 25th September 2007, 7:20pm) QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 25th September 2007, 4:16pm) Speak o' th' Dust Devil — have you seen 3:10 to Yuma yet? Now there's a tale of the Weird Wild West 4U !!! Jonny Cache De Train (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) No, I've heard it really was a letdown for Western fans and, like you said, very weird. However, I hear that Brad Pitt's Jesse James movie is going to be great and be close to historically accurate. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Well, I'm not normally a fan of Westerns all that much anymore, so I guess that's why I liked it. Russell Crowe was just the most lovable of all the really really BADGUYS I ever did see — well, y'know, Present Co. Xcepted Anyway, I really appreciated the Letters from the Earth passage — that was a very important book to me. Jonny (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| WhispersOfWisdom |
|
Lee Nysted
Group: Regulars
Posts: 543
Joined:
Member No.: 2,310
|
QUOTE(The Joy @ Tue 25th September 2007, 3:03pm) I'll admit that I've been editing WP more lately, but I'm hesitant to even try to make major contributions anymore. It amazes me and saddens me that a project like WP which in its infancy held so many promises, but those promises have since been dashed by entrenched and egotistical individuals and a community more obsessed with maintaining a corrupted status quo all to keep those egotistical few happy at the expense of truly good faith contributors and the product of an exemplary reference/encyclopedia. The fact that academics at my grad school see WP as a great and wondrous thing leaves me feeling that many do not look past the positives of Web 2.0 and see the negatives. There are blogs, wikis, podcasts, whatever that are done by competent individuals and communities well-versed in their respected subjects or at least are willing to research and learn about their subject. Even when such individuals and groups come to WP, their efforts can be smashed by one of the aforementioned individuals or their posse. I'm beginning to see WP as more of the US Wild West. The law is sporadic, lawman can be bandits, gangs roam unchecked unless cheesing off the wrong people (i.e. the elite), and its not whether you're right but who you know and what power you possess socially or physically (block powers). I could also see WP as something of feudal Medieval Europe where Jimbo acts like Henry II and his loyal nobles willing to deal harshly with his enemies (i.e Thomas a Beckett). I'm willing to admit there are a few Pat Garretts and Galahads on WP with merit and good morals (not just dealing blindly with policy), but these few can do little to change the poisonous mentality maintained by the current Community and status quo. QUOTE(Mark Twain @ Letters from the Earth)
We are strangely made. We think we are wonderful creatures. Part of the time we think that, at any rate. And during that interval we consider with pride our mental equipment, with its penetration, its power of analysis, its ability to reason out clear conclusions from confused facts, and all the lordly rest of it; and then comes a rational interval and disenchants us. Disenchants us and lays us bare to ourselves, and we see that intellectually we are no great things; that we seldom really know the things we think we know; that our best-built certainties are but sand-houses and subject to damage from any wind of doubt that blows.
Wild west and Al Capone all mixed in with Lord of the flies. Very scary and very creepy. After all, who has all the time in the world to do something for nothing? Teens and underemployed people that sit and fight with each other over who is the more powerful administrator. Without a hint of wisdom sometimes, the cabals and gangs shoot it out until someone gets banned or blocked. A video game that changes the truth and the rules every few seconds. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jonny Cache |
|
τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined:
Member No.: 398
|
QUOTE(WhispersOfWisdom @ Tue 25th September 2007, 11:11pm)
Wild west and Al Capone all mixed in with Lord of the Flies. Very scary and very creepy.
After all, who has all the time in the world to do something for nothing? Teens and underemployed people that sit and fight with each other over who is the more powerful administrator. Without a hint of wisdom sometimes, the cabals and gangs shoot it out until someone gets banned or blocked. A video game that changes the truth and the rules every few seconds.
I know many people who did have time, a little or a lot, people who would have made more time for a project that looked, once upon a time, like a worthwhile effort to build a global learning community. That would have been, that should have been a place where people who had done the work to get real knowledge about given subjects, who were seeking no more compensation than the joy of sharing what they had learned, could have made that knowledge available to any and all who were seeking it. But between these two sorts of people, sorts than naturally shift from subject to subject, there came another sort of people. This third group neither had the knowledge nor desired it — they would have nothing but the power to control the source, control the flow, and control the target of each bit of information. And if they could not achieve total control over a given piece of the sum? Well, then, they could think of nothing better than blocking the transfer of information altogether. That third group of people wasted the time that the first group had to give to sharing their knowledge, wasted the time that the second group had to spend looking for knowledge, and they left behind nothing but block after block to inquiry in their wake, and finally destroyed the project known as Wikipedia altogether. Jon Awbrey This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Emperor |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,871
Joined:
Member No.: 2,042
|
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 25th September 2007, 11:58pm) QUOTE(WhispersOfWisdom @ Tue 25th September 2007, 11:11pm)
Wild west and Al Capone all mixed in with Lord of the Flies. Very scary and very creepy.
After all, who has all the time in the world to do something for nothing? Teens and underemployed people that sit and fight with each other over who is the more powerful administrator. Without a hint of wisdom sometimes, the cabals and gangs shoot it out until someone gets banned or blocked. A video game that changes the truth and the rules every few seconds.
I know many people who did have time, a little or a lot, people who would have made more time for a project that looked, once upon a time, like a worthwhile effort to build a global learning community. That would have been, that should have been a place where people who had done the work to get real knowledge about given subjects, who were seeking no more compensation than the joy of sharing what they had learned, could have made that knowledge available to any and all who were seeking it. But between these two sorts of people, sorts than naturally shift from subject to subject, there came another sort of people. This third group neither had the knowledge nor desired it — they would have nothing but the power to control the source, control the flow, and control the target of each bit of information. And if they could not achieve total control over a given piece of the sum? Well, then, they could think of nothing better than blocking the transfer of information altogether. That third group of people wasted the time that the first group had to give to sharing their knowledge, wasted the time that the second group had to spend looking for knowledge, and they left behind nothing but block after block to inquiry in their wake, and finally destroyed the project known as Wikipedia altogether. Jon Awbrey Excellent summary. Which do you think would be better: 1) no third group, or 2) a well qualified, regulated, and disciplined third group? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jonny Cache |
|
τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined:
Member No.: 398
|
QUOTE(Emperor @ Wed 26th September 2007, 12:54pm) QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 25th September 2007, 11:58pm) QUOTE(WhispersOfWisdom @ Tue 25th September 2007, 11:11pm)
Wild west and Al Capone all mixed in with Lord of the Flies. Very scary and very creepy.
After all, who has all the time in the world to do something for nothing? Teens and underemployed people that sit and fight with each other over who is the more powerful administrator. Without a hint of wisdom sometimes, the cabals and gangs shoot it out until someone gets banned or blocked. A video game that changes the truth and the rules every few seconds.
I know many people who did have time, a little or a lot, people who would have made more time for a project that looked, once upon a time, like a worthwhile effort to build a global learning community. That would have been, that should have been a place where people who had done the work to get real knowledge about given subjects, who were seeking no more compensation than the joy of sharing what they had learned, could have made that knowledge available to any and all who were seeking it. But between these two sorts of people, sorts than naturally shift from subject to subject, there came another sort of people. This third group neither had the knowledge nor desired it — they would have nothing but the power to control the source, control the flow, and control the target of each bit of information. And if they could not achieve total control over a given piece of the sum? Well, then, they could think of nothing better than blocking the transfer of information altogether. That third group of people wasted the time that the first group had to give to sharing their knowledge, wasted the time that the second group had to spend looking for knowledge, and they left behind nothing but block after block to inquiry in their wake, and finally destroyed the project known as Wikipedia altogether. Jon Awbrey Excellent summary. Which do you think would be better: 1) no third group, or 2) a well qualified, regulated, and disciplined third group? I'm always a little suspicious of simple answers to complex questions, and this business about 3 groups of people could easily slide into that degenre of oversimple fiction if we are not careful. So it's best to think of concrete situations in your experience where you could observe something like these 3 different motives in play. It may be that you can observe all 3 motives in yourself at one time. It may be that you are more one way than another in regard to one subject while shifting in your attitude toward another subject. It may be that ∑ Ppl are just 1 way pretty much all the time about ∀-thing. Many such journeys are possible … Jon Awbrey This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jonny Cache |
|
τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined:
Member No.: 398
|
Wikipedia puts the Public at risk in two main ways:- Content. It supplies information-seekers with poor quality information on substantive subject matters.
- Conduct. It hammers the malleable participant into adopting a host of bad habits — poor citizenship, poor critical thinking skills, poor journalistic practices, poor research skills, and poor scholarship.
A few comments about the content issue — Wikipedia is designed to enforce poor information quality on the content of its articlesWikipediots enforce measures of "quality control" that make a mockery of the very concept — they control the quality, but downward — they keep the quality of information from rising above the lowest common denominator of the least informed editor's misconceptions about each substantive subject. This method of editing succeeds only on non-substantive subjects, where any ediot can supply sufficient data to fill the page. Slrubenstein's little manifesto above is a perfect example of this Doctrine Of Unlearning. You're supposed to "unlearn" the meaning of words like consensus and truth, to forget all your former sense of the radical difference between them, and to supplant these concepts in your poor, unwashed brain with the "unique meaning" that Wikipediots hallucinate on be½ of their far-less-than-½-baked notion of truth by consensus. Jon Awbrey This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
