Cyc-Borg Idiology : Cybernetic Opacity, Fear Of Uncertainty : Assistance Is Futile Options

[Jonny Cache]

In my struggles to comprehend what we have called the Wikipedia Ideology, I realize that, whatever it is, it is something bigger and older and likely to be a lot longer lasting than Wikipedia itself, indeed, we can trace its devolution from DMOZ and Nupedia, and it has already undergone a mutant mitosis in the form of Citizendium.

So what is this stuff? -- this condition of mind that seeks a hive?

To bee or not to bee -- that is the question.

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Jonny Cache]

It really is difficult to think about this Stuff -- something about it just turns my brain to Wik'n'Chil -- and so by way of stars to steer by I tried to stuff as many Jonny Mnemonics as I could muster into the successive sub*titles of the piece.

Thus I can begin by explaining the elements of the title:

• Cyc-Borg Idiology
• Cybernetic Opacity
• Fear Of Uncertainty
• Assistance Is Futile

I will expand these codes in stages.

For future reference, I will store some additional mnemonics here:

• Infantile Narcissism (IN)
• Mutually Assured Devotion (MAD)
• Differentially Extended Narcissism (DEN)
• Irrational Revolt Against Experience (IRAE)
• Regressed Infant Point Of View (RIPOV)
• Virtual Illiterate Point Of View (VIPOV)
• Self-Love Of The Hive (SLOTH)

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Jonny Cache]

Cyc-Borg Idiology

Sometimes a typo is just a typo -- but not this time. An idiology is a lot like an ideology only far more idiosyncratic and singular in its character -- singular in the sense of a catastrophic force-field collapse. Now, one will naturally guess that borg derives from cyborg, which in turn is short for cybernetic organism, and of course that's one element of the associative complex in question. But it also derives from Old English and Old German words like barow, beorg, berg, burg, and so on, suggesting the connection of our modern cities with fortified, heaped up, mounded places, all of them ultimately from the Sanskrit brhant for high. If you are starting to recall that Bible Babel Story (BBS), then you are beginning to get the picture.

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Jonny Cache]

Cybernetic Opacity

Again, in a ship, if a man were at liberty to do what he chose, but were devoid of mind and excellence in navigation (αρετης κυβερνητικης), do you perceive what must happen to him and his fellow sailors? (Plato, Alcibiades, 135A, cf. "Cybernetics", Wikipedia Review).

One of the things that took me a long time to tumble to — such is the power of words over wits — is that the Star Trek picture of 'Borg'Ville — y'know, Cubic Zirconia (CZ) — is really completely backwards from the way that Cybernetics is supposed to work in reality.

The term Cybernetics is still used these days to refer to the science of control systems. The main thing about a control system is that it has (1) an actual state, (2) a desired state, (3) various ways of detecting the differences that may happen to exist between its actual state and its desired state, and (4) various ways of effecting changes of state, in particular, changes that move it from its actual state toward its desired state.

It is possible to distinguish two types of goals, or desired states, that a given cybernetic system may have. The desired state may be a state that the system has passed through before, and even spends the majority of its time in the neighborhood of, or it may be a state that the system has yet to achieve even once.

Now, there is nothing that says that a Hive Mind cannot be an adaptive, goal-directed system. Indeed, the capacity to adapt and to move relentlessly toward certain types of goals is always a part of the hackneyed science fiction story about the Borg.

But that is not the kind of Hive that we know in Wikipedia, which is more like a Hive Of Ostriches (HOO). Oddly enough, the danger of becoming a HOO is not unknown to at least some members of the wikipopulace — there is even a little known and less often invoked essay called WP:OSTRICH that speaks to this very issue. Not too surprisingly, I see that it has been nominated for deletion since the last time I looked.

Horton hears a HOO …
But the HOO does not hear Horton …
BOO HOO …

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Jonny Cache]

Epigraph or Epitaph, I'm Not Sure Which, But It Seems To Fit

For the most part, real behavior proceeds at the subconscious or inarticulate conscious level of its subjective meaning. The person behaving in a certain way "feels" this vaguely, rather than being explicitly aware of the source of his behavior. Mostly his behavior is governed by habit or instinct. Only occasionally, and in the uniform behavior of great masses often only in the case of a few individuals, is the subjective meaning of such behavior, be it rational or irrational, raised to the level of true consciousness. Really effective, that is, truly conscious and clearly meaningful behavior, is in reality always a marginal case. (Weber 1925/1993, p. 54).

Reference. Weber, Max (1925/1993), Basic Concepts in Sociology, H.P. Secher (trans.), Citadel Press, New York, NY, 1993. First published as Chapter 1 of Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (Economics and Society), J.C.B. Mohr Verlag, Tübingen, Germany, 1925.

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Somey]

I'm sure that's true to a large extent, but in Wikiland, I'd have to say that a lot of what we see as "herd mentality" is actually due to fear of stepping on someone else's toes, putting one's head on the chopping block, or generally rocking the boat, if you don't mind my overuse of common clichés. One person can make an enormous difference simply by having the authority to push their agenda without fear of consequences, and by being loud enough to drown out anyone who might object on moral or ethical grounds. (Much more so than in "real life," anyway.)

Every once in a while you see someone who stands up to the agenda-pushers, gets in their face, or whatever, and we see this as principled and courageous. Often it is, but in many cases the person has simply become so exasperated and angry, they feel like they have nothing to lose by, in effect, lashing out. But it's also a form of giving up, and while it looks like the person has finally managed to attain a consciousness independent of the herd, the fact is that this consciousness was there all along - and the system was just trying to "shame" the person into conforming to its needs by supplying an artificial and anti-individualist standard of behavior, and enforcing it with various artificial rules, committees, punishments, and the occasional lynch mob.

Unfortunately, I don't have a citation for that... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

[Jonny Cache]

I'm sure that's true to a large extent, but in Wikiland, I'd have to say that a lot of what we see as "herd mentality" is actually due to fear of stepping on someone else's toes, putting one's head on the chopping block, or generally rocking the boat, if you don't mind my overuse of common clichés. One person can make an enormous difference simply by having the authority to push their agenda without fear of consequences, and by being loud enough to drown out anyone who might object on moral or ethical grounds. (Much more so than in "real life", anyway.)

Cliches can be dangerous -- a whole clique of cliches is even more perilous -- it's been the ruin of many a poor boy to buy the farm and reap the root of all evil that was sown by that very same Lack Of Original Thought (LOOT). Not that it stops anyone from being a smashing succass in Wikipedia.

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Jonny Cache]

Every once in a while you see someone who stands up to the agenda-pushers, gets in their face, or whatever, and we see this as principled and courageous. Often it is, but in many cases the person has simply become so exasperated and angry, they feel like they have nothing to lose by, in effect, lashing out. But it's also a form of giving up, and while it looks like the person has finally managed to attain a consciousness independent of the herd, the fact is that this consciousness was there all along - and the system was just trying to "shame" the person into conforming to its needs by supplying an artificial and anti-individualist standard of behavior, and enforcing it with various artificial rules, committees, punishments, and the occasional lynch mob.

If it comes after a sufficient number of old college tries, speaking of cliches, then I would not call it giving up so much as growing up -- realizing that the game you're in is not the only game in town, that the town you're in is not the only place to be.

Unfortunately, I don't have a citation for that... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

That's okay, I would be the last to invoke the Wikipedia rule of No Independent Thought (WP:NIT).

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Jonny Cache]

Hobbes's preoccupation with the sources of human irrationality clashes rudely with the "rational actor" approach that many commentators project into his works. Despite a few memorable and citable passages, he does not conceive of man as an economic animal, engaging in preemptive strikes. The pitiful and snarled mess which is the human mind cannot be painted with such a monochrome palette. To help us disentangle the complexities of Hobbes's position, I would suggest, at least provisionally, a tripartite scheme. Human behavior is motored not by self-interest alone, but rather by passions, interests, and norms. (Stephen Holmes, p. xviii).

Source. Stephen Holmes, "Introduction" to Thomas Hobbes, Behemoth, or The Long Parliament, Ferdinand Tönnies (ed.), Stephen Holmes (intro.), University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1990.

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

[Jonny Cache]

Continuing here from another thread, but sticking to the cybernetic issues ---

Enlightening as always.

Translation: There is a fun-dumb-mental aspect of the situation which cannot be understood by the people in charge.

There seems to be a sort of psuedo-cybernetic effect in action here (in the control / communication sense of the word, not it's pop culture meaning) which:

1. the good of those who are nominally in charge of the community is seen as the good of the community
   
2. only those who are "trusted" (codeword alert!) should be allowed to make "controversial" actions in a unilateral fashion
   
3. These two are done in conjunction to "rapidly" deal with "emergent threats" to the "substructural gestalt" of WP.
   
4. Outside "disruptive influences" disrupt this cybernetic (or is it hydraulic?) top down system.

In the particular case, there is some collateral "evidence" linking the person blocked to the crime. Some are willing to accept this as both prima fascia and likely, others look at the presenter of said evidence, and attempt to ascertain motives.

But (systemically!) no one is really asking "hey, how is it that SlimVirgin can do these things without being challenged?" Whether you think the block was valid or invalid, and whether you admire or hate SV, the key question is not "Is SV good/evil" or even "is the ban right/wrong" but "should this sort of thing ever be allowed".

Assertion: assume, for the moment, that everything SV stated and posted about this person was 100% true. (I'm not saying it IS, I'm doing a hypothetical). If it was ... should the person be blocked?

Assertion 2: assume, for the moment, that SV is making it ALL up and this is a total frameup. Where the fuck is the outrage on WP? Where are the guardians of the guards?

Back to you, JC.

You may find that some of us ghouls are far less inclined (hell-bent) to that ghoulish propensity for picking over the bones of differential carrion than others, and I for one do far less of that here in the Review than I was forced, for my supper's sake, to do in Wikipedia itself. So I don't know if I'll soon be enticed to read any more of McPedia's -- no offense, Ronnie, I'm talking 'bout McEwan -- slashed and burnt offerings on this score.

But cybernetics, or systems engineering, has been a topic on my neural plate since shortly after my incept date. And it might be less distracting to discuss these issues back on the thread that I threaded for that:

• Cyc-Borg Idiology : Cybernetic Opacity, Fear Of Uncertainty : Assistance Is Futile.

B There <Exclusive Or> B^2 !!!

This Must B The Place !!!

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

This post has been edited by gomi:

[Jonny Cache]

Just by way of restarting this inquiry, the first couple of problems that we encounter are these:

1. To recognize the distinction in concept between e-norms (explicit or expressed norms) and i-norms (implicit or inarticulate norms).
2. How to tell what norms are really driving the dynamics of the system in question.

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Jonny Cache]

Let me now try to address Elara's points 1 by 1:

There is a fun-dumb-mental aspect of the situation which cannot be understood by the people in charge.

Wikipedia management culture exhibits a definite failure of critical examination, to be sure. But the exact nature of the repression -- (1) politically deliberate denial and dissimulation or (2) psychologically dynamic dissociation and dysfunctionality -- that is another question. Chances are -- a whole lot of both.

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Jonny Cache]

Here's the groove I was looking for —
Dedicated to all the Wired Systers —

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

[Moulton]

Wikipedia management culture exhibits a definite failure of critical examination, to be sure. But the exact nature of the repression -- (1) politically deliberate denial and dissimulation or (2) psychologically dynamic dissociation and dysfunctionality -- that is another question. Chances are -- a whole lot of both.

It occurs to me that the pervasive dysfunctionality arises for the reasons I set forth in my general purpose essay on the inherent dysfunctionality of rule-based systems in general.

[Jonny Cache]

Wikipedia management culture exhibits a definite failure of critical examination, to be sure. But the exact nature of the repression — (1) politically deliberate denial and dissimulation or (2) psychologically dynamic dissociation and dysfunctionality — that is another question. Chances are — a whole lot of both.

It occurs to me that the pervasive dysfunctionality arises for the reasons I set forth in my general purpose essay on the inherent dysfunctionality of rule-based systems in general.

I scanned that essay a couple of times — it might help if you pointed to more specific points in it — but just off hand I think the problem is elsewhere, as Wikipedia is far from being a Rule-Based System (RBS) in anything but the WP:BS ¬sense of the words.

Jon Awbrey

[Moulton]

One problem is the conflation of unrelated goal states. The overarching goal state is to compile a high-quality encyclopedia. But many players treat it more like a chess game, where the objective is to clear opposing editors off the board. This latter subtext suggests that the goal of achieving a neutral point of view is being subverted.

[GlassBeadGame]

After all, a tiny perturbation in the vicinity of the switching point yields an abrupt and dramatic switch in the value of the function. This sudden reversal is the key feature of systems which produce chaotic, catastrophic, tragic, and disastrous outcomes.

---Moulton's Essay

Could you flesh this out with some illustrations drawn from WP decision making/rule application?

[Jonny Cache]

One problem is the conflation of unrelated goal states. The overarching goal state is to compile a high-quality encyclopedia. But many players treat it more like a chess game, where the objective is to clear opposing editors off the board. This latter subtext suggests that the goal of achieving a neutral point of view is being subverted.

We need to recognize the distinction between "espoused values" and "enacted values". This is a difference that I learned about, in a way that was hard-knocks enough to make me fully conscious of it, during my brief, not brief enough tenure in a military school at the age of 17. But more or less the same concepts were later written up in the above terms by Argyris and Schon, whom I last had occasion to mention in connection with our discussion of the Wikidashboard "Ediot Light" here.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Moulton]

After all, a tiny perturbation in the vicinity of the switching point yields an abrupt and dramatic switch in the value of the function. This sudden reversal is the key feature of systems which produce chaotic, catastrophic, tragic, and disastrous outcomes.

---Moulton's Essay

Could you flesh this out with some illustrations drawn from WP decision making/rule application?

The example I am most familiar with on Wikipedia is the recent example where I was caught in the maelstrom of that very dynamic. I wrote an Op-Ed piece on the experience which was picked up and reprinted in a university publication.

Most of the energy in the RfC went into finding sufficient cause to justify flipping the switch. Ironically enough, when KillerChihuaha finally did flip the switch, she cited as her cause of action her personal theory of mind about my intent. It was trivial to demonstrate that her belief about my intent was laughably in error, but neither Mike Godwin nor ArbCom responded to my requests for a review.

[Jonny Cache]

Hold on, hold on, I know I was bedevilled by doorbells in my head and buzzed by Xcess sugar in my blood last night, so maybe I'm the last to be caching on, but correct if I'm guessing wrong here:

• Moulton is Barry Kort ?
• KillerChihuahua is a Bitch ?

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