Ayn Rand and cults generally, In which I have a bet with Jimbo Options

[Peter Damian]

See Jimbo's talk page, and the [[Ayn Rand]] article which I have rewritten. The bet is how long it will stay in its rewritten state. I love the remark that 'Aristotle was sorely over-rated'.

'Aristotle was sorely overrated'. Ha! Wikipediot. Obscure greek Homer 42k, famous american Homer 65k. I would have bought this argument when Wikipedia first began. But as I pointed out above, the project is now mature, and we still find it difficult to attract editors who can write accessible material on more encylopedic subjects. The reason is abundantly clear: the place is infested with cranks, advocates of strange fringe theories, mystics, lunatics of all kinds. No sane intelligent person would go near the place with a bargepole. In any case, I have now re-written the introduction to Ayn Rand that makes it less obviously written by Rand fanatics. Let's see what happens from there on. If the introduction stands relatively unchanged, I lose my bet. If it is torn to shreds and returned to the unreadable ungrammatical state as before, I win, bigtime. Peter Damian (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...es_in_Wikipedia

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Peter Damian]

And back to the point of this thread. Adherents of cults are well known to be impervious to any kind of rational argument. That's part of the definition of 'cult'.

So, a question for Lar, why are these people on Wikipedia? There are some easy tests one can apply to identify these people, hint, they are often very civil. Why aren't those with influence on Wikipedia addressing this issue as a matter of concern? Why are they only interested in attacking those who are raising this concern, such as myself, in extended personal attacks such as Lar made above? Answers?

[Lar]

And back to the point of this thread. Adherents of cults are well known to be impervious to any kind of rational argument. That's part of the definition of 'cult'.

So, a question for Lar, why are these people on Wikipedia? There are some easy tests one can apply to identify these people, hint, they are often very civil. Why aren't those with influence on Wikipedia addressing this issue as a matter of concern? Why are they only interested in attacking those who are raising this concern, such as myself, in extended personal attacks such as Lar made above? Answers?

Extended personal attacks? What are you talking about.

If you want me to answer questions it helps not to be too disparaging. Which is the totality of my point about civility. It's not a sufficient condition for contributing, but it is a necessary one (or it ought to be... I know WP has a lot of VestedContributors who get away with stuff and I don't like that one bit).

I'm concerned about people who are impervious to any kind of rational argument. I just don't know what to do about it. I think there have been a number of ArbCom cases about this matter, but as of yet there hasn't been a perfect solution. (or even a fairly good one).

[Peter Damian]

Extended personal attacks? What are you talking about.

This

We get it. You're not there to write an encyclopedia, you're there to count coup, make bets, score points, posture for the viewing audience there and here, and the like. Spare us.

If you were there to actually write an encyclopedia, you would not be going about it this way.

You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it... So stop the posturing. It's not worth your time or anyone else's. Most everyone's on to you already.

I found that all deeply offensive.

[dtobias]

Extended personal attacks? What are you talking about.

This

We get it. You're not there to write an encyclopedia, you're there to count coup, make bets, score points, posture for the viewing audience there and here, and the like. Spare us.

If you were there to actually write an encyclopedia, you would not be going about it this way.

You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it... So stop the posturing. It's not worth your time or anyone else's. Most everyone's on to you already.

I found that all deeply offensive.

I found it perceptively descriptive of the sort of attitude you're taking... and that description would apply also to some others here like Moulton, TheKohser, and Awbrey... all of you are more interested in trying to prove, and score, points, and disrupt and ridicule their enemies, than in making productive contributions.