Wikipedia: A Threat To Civil Society, No More Monsieur Nice Guy Options Rating

[Jonny Cache]

No More Monsieur Nice Guy

After 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


This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Kato]

(IMG:http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb311/Kato90125/nakedlunch2.jpg)

"The junk merchant doesn't sell his product to the consumer,
he sells the consumer to his product.
He does not improve and simplify his merchandise.
He degrades and simplifies the client."

William S. Burroughs. Naked Lunch.

[Jonny Cache]

(IMG:http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb311/Kato90125/nakedlunch2.jpg)

"The junk merchant doesn't sell his product to the consumer,
he sells the consumer to his product.
He does not improve and simplify his merchandise.
He degrades and simplifies the client."

� William S. Burroughs, Naked Lunch

There is a discussion in the so-called "Tar Pit and Feather Barrel" of The Wikipedia Review that touches � off and on, hot and cold � on the Matter of Evil, a thing or two about which I have a thing or three to say, but I can hardly tell the Tarry-Eyed from the Feather Heads in that subversion, er, subforum, so I will leave those animadversions where they lie and resurrect the issue here, in one of the more general contexts where it fits.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Somey]

There is a discussion in the so-called "Tar Pit and Feather Barrel" of The Wikipedia Review that touches � off and on, hot and cold � on the Matter of Evil, a thing or two about which I have a thing or three to say...

For the benefit of non-members who can't read the material being referred to, it's not quite so bad as one's imagination might lead one to believe...

Nobody is saying "Wikipedia is Evil" in any sort of objective sense, for example. Well, maybe one or two people are saying that, but the point is, most people here aren't accusing the WP'ers of acting out of malice or a genuine desire to hurt people, though there are always going to be exceptions. The problem, really, is what are they doing about the exceptions?

The most recent example is this WikiEN-L post by Josh "User:JoshuaZ" Zelinsky. He claims to be monitoring "reliable sources" on an ongoing basis, waiting for Daniel Brandt (and should I assume others as well? the mind reels!) to "slip up" and do something "notable" so that they can put the article about him back up on Wikipedia, and go back to sticking it to him - just like the good ol' days!

So the question becomes, is ol' Josh merely yet another far-gone sociopath, or is he genuinely evil, in the objective, demonic, anti-conventional-morality sense?

We also have to bear in mind that in the post-9/11 era, evil is the new bad. The term gets casually tossed around more than iceberg lettuce 'n' croutons.

I've pointed out Josh's similarity to a rogue artificial-intelligence construct many times, and now it looks like they've programmed a whole bunch of new "attack mode" subroutines into him. I imagine the programmer is having a good time, at least. But as I wrote in the other thread, until they fix that, you can't ask me to be impressed with any of the erstwhile-good things they do individually, because it simply will never be enough to overcome that kind of mentality. User:JoshuaZ may be the worst Wikipedia has to offer, but as long as people like him remain there, they'll continue to be a sick community.

(The maxim is "Hanlon's Razor," by the way, and in this case at least, it doesn't apply - JoshuaZ and his programmers know exactly what they're doing.)

[Joseph100]

(The maxim is "Hanlon's Razor," by the way, and in this case at least, it doesn't apply - JoshuaZ and his programmers know exactly what they're doing.)

"Don't attribute evil to what may be simple stupidity"

(The maxim is "Hanlon's Razor," by the way, and in this case at least, it doesn't apply - JoshuaZ and his programmers know exactly what they're doing.)

"Don't attribute evil to what may be simple stupidity"

But.... Wikipeidia does "evil" though it's thoughtlessness, it's Defamation, It's Lies and Misinformation and Abuse of people, for no other reason as to excise of raw power for it's own sake and gratification.

[Moulton]

Wikipedia does "evil" though its thoughtlessness, its defamation, its lies and misinformation and abuse of people, for no other reason than the exercise of raw power for its own sake and gratification.

I define "evil" as a toxic combination of four ingredients...

Evil = Power + Fear + Obliviousness + Ruthlessness

[Kato]

Evil = Power + Fear + Obliviousness + Ruthlessness

(IMG:http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb311/Kato90125/Drevil.jpg)

"The sum of all human knowledge"

[Jonny Cache]

I awoke from The Sickness at the age of forty-five, calm and sane, and in reasonably good health except for a weakened liver and the look of borrowed flesh common to all who survive The Sickness. . . . Most survivors do not remember the delirium in detail. I apparently took detailed notes ...

� William S. Burroughs, Naked Lunch

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: