Wikipedia Culture : How Like A Cult, Single Mad Belief? Mental Cul-De-Sac? Options Rating

[Peter Damian]

Eric Barbour's experience needs spelling out, because it is fundamental, and explains why Wikipedia is a cult. All cults have a single belief which is completely mad. Everything is they believe is quite logical and rational, except for the single mad belief. Marxists have the thing about the explanation of history. Scientologists have the 'Thetan' theory of the origin of evil.

All the evil things that a cult does can be explained by their belief in this single mad thing.

In the case of Wikipedia, the mad belief is that good articles arise from the efforts of hundreds or thousands of individual nameless editors. This is despite all evidence to the contrary that each good article is the work of one or two editors who have special or unique expertise in their subject area.

This explains all the evil that has arisen. The cult belief naturally irritates the editors who have contributed the good articles. They get no special status on the project. Look at the way Giano has been treated. It also explains the obsession with 'civility'. Clearly there are problems at the moment (witness Giano again). But the obvious explanation has to be ruled out, because it contradicts the cult belief. Therefore the explanation has to be 'incivility'. Incivility is not the symptom of the Wikipedia problem, it is the cause of it. Therefore good editors must be evicted, because they are harming the project. They can be replaced, because the progress of the encylopedia depends not on individuals, but the wisdom of the crowd. And they must be replaced, because their uncivil behaviour is preventing this progress.

[dtobias]

I don't think that explains all of the WikiClique behavior... if the core belief is that everybody is interchangeable and replaceable, then how come certain people (like Slim Virgin and JzG) get enormous deference despite their incivility and abuses, on the grounds of their supposed great contributions to the project?

[Peter Damian]

I don't think that explains all of the WikiClique behavior... if the core belief is that everybody is interchangeable and replaceable, then how come certain people (like Slim Virgin and JzG) get enormous deference despite their incivility and abuses, on the grounds of their supposed great contributions to the project?

Only subject matter experts are interchangeable and replaceable. True believers are difficult to find, and are valuable. They infuse other members of the project with this valuable spirit. Ergo &c.

[Jonny Cache]

I don't think that explains all of the WikiClique behavior … if the core belief is that everybody is interchangeable and replaceable, then how come certain people (like Slim Virgin and JzG) get enormous deference despite their incivility and abuses, on the grounds of their supposed great contributions to the project?

One of the telltale marks of a cult is that cult members never call it a cult — they always use some kind of disarming euphemism like "clique" or "community" or "that ol' gang o' mine" or something.

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

The cult analogy has been raked over many times, but I reckon its always worth looking at in the light of current events.

The "single mad belief" thing is pedestrian, and would lead you to classify most organisations with supernatural belief as cults. I mean, come on - guy nailed to cross comes back to life? Taking your example of scientology, that's a lot more than a single mad belief, its a whole lifestyle full of them, from the bizarre misuse of vitamins to the whole "engram/thetan" delusion.

Any serious attempt I've seen to describe the essentials of a cult tends to focus not on what the members believe, but on how they behave, and its fascinating to reflect on the list that generally emerges: an internal political system exercising power over devotees; a leader claiming spiritual or material wisdom and being the subject of adoration for infallibility; dogmatic inflexibility; emphasis on recruitment/proselytizing; creation and use of front groups to carry out part of the organisation's mission; emphasis on obtaining wealth and on member donations; desire to obtain external political influence; sexual/emotional manipulation, "love-bombing"; censorship and attempts to control members' access to external discourse; efforts to prevent or recover dropouts; paranoia; disallowing of humour aimed at the group, its leader or its doctrines.

Wikipedia? Cult-like? Nah, no evidence at all...

[wikiwhistle]

This is my favoured description of what makes a group destructive, or a 'cult', it's actually a topic I was interested in very much at one point. As UseOnce says, it often focuses on a charismatic leader, and exploitation of members in various ways. They tend to volunteer a lot of their time. I don't remember seeing this particular description before from Rick Ross (whose forum I used to frequent a lot) though I probably did:-

http://www.rickross.com/warningsigns.html If you will bear with me, when it comes to Wikipedia, so much of it applies (except -so far- perhaps the religious elements), it is worth considering here

"Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader.

1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.

2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.

4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.

5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.

6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.

7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.

8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".

9. The group/leader is always right.

10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

Ten warning signs regarding people involved in/with a potentially unsafe group/leader.

1. Extreme obsessiveness regarding the group/leader resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration.

2. Individual identity, the group, the leader and/or God as distinct and separate categories of existence become increasingly blurred. Instead, in the follower's mind these identities become substantially and increasingly fused--as that person's involvement with the group/leader continues and deepens.

3. Whenever the group/leader is criticized or questioned it is characterized as "persecution".

4. Uncharacteristically stilted and seemingly programmed conversation and mannerisms, cloning of the group/leader in personal behavior.

5. Dependency upon the group/leader for problem solving, solutions, and definitions without meaningful reflective thought. A seeming inability to think independently or analyze situations without group/leader involvement.

6. Hyperactivity centered on the group/leader agenda, which seems to supercede any personal goals or individual interests.

7. A dramatic loss of spontaneity and sense of humor.

8. Increasing isolation from family and old friends unless they demonstrate an interest in the group/leader.

9. Anything the group/leader does can be justified no matter how harsh or harmful.

10. Former followers are at best-considered negative or worse evil and under bad influences. They can not be trusted and personal contact is avoided."

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle:

[jorge]

Chilling

[Peter Damian]

would lead you to classify most organisations with supernatural belief as cults. I mean, come on - guy nailed to cross comes back to life?

I deliberately left that one out. And there can be many other mad beliefs, but there has to be one really important one. As for the rest of the criteria, these I claim are derivative of the 'single belief' thing.

[Somey]

The "single mad belief" thing is pedestrian, and would lead you to classify most organisations with supernatural belief as cults.

There's been plenty of philosophical debate on the question of when a religious cult becomes an established religion. Hopefully it's not the point at which it achieves tax-exempt status, because WP already has that...

Anyway, I think the "single mad belief" idea is perfectly valid. My only question would be, if you look at some of the other questionable, and possibly "mad," beliefs that are regularly bandied about on WP, are they in support of the "wisdom of crowds" Big Lie misconception, or do they merely augment it?

For example:

Objectivist fundamentalism is a valid conceptual framework for a general informational reference. It is possible to develop a completely objective or "neutral" description of practically everything that exists, so create a software model that forces people to try, but also gives casual readers the impression that success has been achieved in each case, even if it hasn't.

Free content is an end in itself. The copyright system is "bloated" and "corrupt"; therefore, nobody should ever have to pay for anything they read or listen to ever again. Copy, plagiarize, or even steal if necessary.

Morality is "irrelevant." Everything is relative, and situational ethics "don't work," so the only workable system is one based on rules, except that the rules may be changed or reinterpreted to fit any given situation. Arbitrary policy (which in practice turns out to be based mostly on preserving the size and influence of the site and its own internal power structure) therefore trumps traditional (non-relativist) morality.

Given that "wisdom of crowds" is the Guiding Principle™, in those three (and it's by no means an exhaustive list) you have a working concept, an ever-elusive goal, and a solution to the individual-conscience problem.

All you need now is a logo, and you're all set!

[Jonny Cache]

The "single mad belief" thing is pedestrian, and would lead you to classify most organisations with supernatural belief as cults.

There's been plenty of philosophical debate on the question of when a religious cult becomes an established religion. Hopefully it's not the point at which it achieves tax-exempt status, because WP already has that …

Anyway, I think the "single mad belief" idea is perfectly valid. My only question would be, if you look at some of the other questionable, and possibly "mad," beliefs that are regularly bandied about on WP, are they in support of the "wisdom of crowds" Big Lie misconception, or do they merely augment it?

For example:

Objectivist fundamentalism is a valid conceptual framework for a general informational reference. It is possible to develop a completely objective or "neutral" description of practically everything that exists, so create a software model that forces people to try, but also gives casual readers the impression that success has been achieved in each case, even if it hasn't.

Free content is an end in itself. The copyright system is "bloated" and "corrupt"; therefore, nobody should ever have to pay for anything they read or listen to ever again. Copy, plagiarize, or even steal if necessary.

Morality is "irrelevant." Everything is relative, and situational ethics "don't work," so the only workable system is one based on rules, except that the rules may be changed or reinterpreted to fit any given situation. Arbitrary policy (which in practice turns out to be based mostly on preserving the size and influence of the site and its own internal power structure) therefore trumps traditional (non-relativist) morality.

Given that "wisdom of crowds" is the Guiding Principle™, in those three (and it's by no means an exhaustive list) you have a working concept, an ever-elusive goal, and a solution to the individual-conscience problem.

All you need now is a logo, and you're all set!

This looks like a very fruitful discussion — and by their fruits ye shall know them — I've got too much on my plate right now to join in, but maybe I will make a meta-thread to collect some previous thoughts.

One of the things that keeps coming to mind is the kinship between con artists and cult leaders — the idea that a genuine cult leader is like a conman who has conned himself along with his marks or followers into buying his line.

Con artists and cult leaders alike rely on tapping a prior stratum of uncritical belief that their flocks really, really want to believe, more than they desire reality itself.

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[dtobias]

Doesn't basing things on Objectivist fundamentalism, and claiming that "everything is relative", contradict one another?

[Somey]

Doesn't basing things on Objectivist fundamentalism, and claiming that "everything is relative", contradict one another?

Yes. That's what makes it so appallingly hypocritical.

[Jonny Cache]

Doesn't basing things on Objectivist fundamentalism, and claiming that "everything is relative", contradict one another?

Yes. That's what makes it so appallingly hypocritical.

Strictly speaking, there is no contradiction between holding that there is an objective reality and holding that everything we know of it involves a relation to us as knowers.

It's just that Randroid Objectivism was so fixated on a radically adolescent view of science that it had no grasp of how the integration between these two aspects of knowledge had come to fruition in modern times.

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Milton Roe]

I don't think that explains all of the WikiClique behavior... if the core belief is that everybody is interchangeable and replaceable, then how come certain people (like Slim Virgin and JzG) get enormous deference despite their incivility and abuses, on the grounds of their supposed great contributions to the project?

They aren't getting defference on the basis of their enormous WRITING contributions. They're getting deference on the basis of their enormous administrative contributions. Does anybody imagine that JzG or Slimey is an expert on anything at all, in real life?

This is my favoured description of what makes a group destructive, or a 'cult', it's actually a topic I was interested in very much at one point. As UseOnce says, it often focuses on a charismatic leader, and exploitation of members in various ways. They tend to volunteer a lot of their time. I don't remember seeing this particular description before from Rick Ross (whose forum I used to frequent a lot) though I probably did:-

http://www.rickross.com/warningsigns.html If you will bear with me, when it comes to Wikipedia, so much of it applies (except -so far- perhaps the religious elements), it is worth considering here

"Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader.

1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.

2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.

4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.

5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.

6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.

7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.

8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".

9. The group/leader is always right.

10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

Ten warning signs regarding people involved in/with a potentially unsafe group/leader.

1. Extreme obsessiveness regarding the group/leader resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration.

2. Individual identity, the group, the leader and/or God as distinct and separate categories of existence become increasingly blurred. Instead, in the follower's mind these identities become substantially and increasingly fused--as that person's involvement with the group/leader continues and deepens.

3. Whenever the group/leader is criticized or questioned it is characterized as "persecution".

4. Uncharacteristically stilted and seemingly programmed conversation and mannerisms, cloning of the group/leader in personal behavior.

5. Dependency upon the group/leader for problem solving, solutions, and definitions without meaningful reflective thought. A seeming inability to think independently or analyze situations without group/leader involvement.

6. Hyperactivity centered on the group/leader agenda, which seems to supercede any personal goals or individual interests.

7. A dramatic loss of spontaneity and sense of humor.

8. Increasing isolation from family and old friends unless they demonstrate an interest in the group/leader.

9. Anything the group/leader does can be justified no matter how harsh or harmful.

10. Former followers are at best-considered negative or worse evil and under bad influences. They can not be trusted and personal contact is avoided."

Worth pointing out that the Nation of Islam in the late 50's and early 60's was spot on for all of this. Their leader got nailed for sex stuff, but they tried to cover it up. Malcolm X got kicked out for defying authority by saying politically incorrect stuff about the JFK assassination, and spent what was to be the rest of his life in WR-like struggles with his parent association (they killed him about a year later). That famous pic of him looking out the window with a machine gun is not meant to be one illustrating his stuggles with crackers-- he had it taken as a warning to Nation of Islam member trying to firebomb his house.

Anyway, Malcolm X really didn't "grow up" fully until he left his cult and got out into the world. A shame he didn't quite make it for a few years longer, as he was growing fast and would have had much to say.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I don't think that explains all of the WikiClique behavior... if the core belief is that everybody is interchangeable and replaceable, then how come certain people (like Slim Virgin and JzG) get enormous deference despite their incivility and abuses, on the grounds of their supposed great contributions to the project?

They aren't getting defference on the basis of their enormous WRITING contributions. They're getting deference on the basis of their enormous administrative contributions.

I don't know whether that is true, either. I think they are propitiated rather than respected, because of their MMORPG prowess. People suck up to them in hopes of advancement, and out of fear.

I don't remember seeing this particular description before from Rick Ross (whose forum I used to frequent a lot) though I probably did:-

http://www.rickross.com/warningsigns.html If you will bear with me, when it comes to Wikipedia, so much of it applies (except -so far- perhaps the religious elements), it is worth considering here

"Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader.

1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.

2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.

4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.

5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.

6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.

7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.

8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".

9. The group/leader is always right.

10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

Ten warning signs regarding people involved in/with a potentially unsafe group/leader.

1. Extreme obsessiveness regarding the group/leader resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration.

2. Individual identity, the group, the leader and/or God as distinct and separate categories of existence become increasingly blurred. Instead, in the follower's mind these identities become substantially and increasingly fused--as that person's involvement with the group/leader continues and deepens.

3. Whenever the group/leader is criticized or questioned it is characterized as "persecution".

4. Uncharacteristically stilted and seemingly programmed conversation and mannerisms, cloning of the group/leader in personal behavior.

5. Dependency upon the group/leader for problem solving, solutions, and definitions without meaningful reflective thought. A seeming inability to think independently or analyze situations without group/leader involvement.

6. Hyperactivity centered on the group/leader agenda, which seems to supercede any personal goals or individual interests.

7. A dramatic loss of spontaneity and sense of humor.

8. Increasing isolation from family and old friends unless they demonstrate an interest in the group/leader.

9. Anything the group/leader does can be justified no matter how harsh or harmful.

10. Former followers are at best-considered negative or worse evil and under bad influences. They can not be trusted and personal contact is avoided."

I would be cautious in presenting Rick Ross as an authority -- he's a charlatan. His definition may be useful for the purposes of this discussion.

Worth pointing out that the Nation of Islam in the late 50's and early 60's was spot on for all of this.

And yet, the NOI accomplished much that was positive -- which is a good example of why these sorts of discussions can be ticklish. I would submit that what WP and NOI have in common is that their potential for playing a constructive role in society has been seriously compromised by corruption and hypocrisy among their leading elites.

[Castle Rock]

User Andries, who actually was in a cult, wrote an essay about this. The comparison of one Jim to another didn't go over to well.

[wikiwhistle]

I would be cautious in presenting Rick Ross as an authority -- he's a charlatan.

In a way. His general points about destructive groups are good- it doesn't matter for that purpose that he does not have a professional qualification, as these points are mainly summaries of other's work such as that of Margaret Singer.

But he has his own biases towards certain groups for reasons of political correctness, which prevents him accepting people's reports of abuse by them. And he particularly dislikes certain groups based on his own biases.

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle:

[Jonny Cache]

Could I Have A Single Malt Scotch Instead?

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

[Milton Roe]

Could I Have A Single Malt Scotch Instead?

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

Yes, but please don't ask while in Belize.

[Ed Poor]

Eric Barbour's experience needs spelling out, because it is fundamental, and explains why Wikipedia is a cult. All cults have a single belief which is completely mad. Everything is they believe is quite logical and rational, except for the single mad belief. Marxists have the thing about the explanation of history. Scientologists have the 'Thetan' theory of the origin of evil.

All the evil things that a cult does can be explained by their belief in this single mad thing.

In the case of Wikipedia, the mad belief is that good articles arise from the efforts of hundreds or thousands of individual nameless editors. This is despite all evidence to the contrary that each good article is the work of one or two editors who have special or unique expertise in their subject area.

This explains all the evil that has arisen. The cult belief naturally irritates the editors who have contributed the good articles. They get no special status on the project. Look at the way Giano has been treated. It also explains the obsession with 'civility'. Clearly there are problems at the moment (witness Giano again). But the obvious explanation has to be ruled out, because it contradicts the cult belief. Therefore the explanation has to be 'incivility'. Incivility is not the symptom of the Wikipedia problem, it is the cause of it. Therefore good editors must be evicted, because they are harming the project. They can be replaced, because the progress of the encylopedia depends not on individuals, but the wisdom of the crowd. And they must be replaced, because their uncivil behaviour is preventing this progress.

Well, this makes sense. I was all but evicted when I challenged the "truth in numbers" aspect of Wikipedia, and of course Larry Sanger left long before that and slammed the door hard quite a few times on his way out.

Wikipedia does not trust experts at all. While officially opposing "page ownership" by any one individual, it tolerates and even supports group ownership ("tag-team editing") tacitly.

I was taken down a few pegs for daring to balance several different articles - each about a different liberal sacred cow - and was charged, tried and convicted of "tendentious editing". In other words, they said I was promoting a POV - although I was merely trying to mention that (in the world outside Wikipedia's cozy little cult) there are people who believe things contrary to the slant expressed in those articles. (Details available on request.)

"Uncle Ed"