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]

Wow, already "She has attracted an almost fanatical popular following in parts of America" is changed to "She attracted a popular following, particularly in America"

[GlassBeadGame]

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

Excellent point Peter. Welcome to Wikipedia: the slum of all human knowledge.

[Peter Damian]

Er, thankyou Moulton.

The other argument that is being trotted out on the Jimbo page with monotonous regularity is the tired old chestnut about the magic of the Internet, which means we have so much space on the Internet that we should be adding material on Homer the Greek, rather than deleting material on Homer Simpson.

Dead wrong. Of course there is space on the Internet, it's called 'the Internet'. Everything is there, of course. But with no indication is to verifiability, neutrality, and most importantly, no indication of notability. Indeed, there is a probable inverse correlation between something being on the internet (and Wikipedia), and its notability. Reference works proceed by a careful process of selection and weeding out. And much of the chaff that is rejected naturally ends up on the Net.

And then on Wikipedia.

A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.

—Antoine de St. Exupery

[Moulton]

A true educator does not add knowledge.

A true educator takes away ignorance.

[Peter Damian]

I win the bet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=263203466

That was quick.

[Milton Roe]

A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.

—Antoine de St. Exupery

Simplify, simplify, simplify!

--Henry David Thoreau

Simplify.

--Wendy McElroy

[maggot3]

I still find it absolutely unbelievable that people subscribe to Ayn Rand's abhorrent views, believe that that nonsense is applicable to real life, and even worse, read her awful, awful writing.

Uh, actually, this is kind of off topic for the thread. Oops. This sort of thing is pretty sad. To be kind of on topic.

This post has been edited by maggot3:

[Peter Damian]

I still find it absolutely unbelievable that people subscribe to Ayn Rand's abhorrent views, believe that that nonsense is applicable to real life, and even worse, read her awful, awful writing.

Uh, actually, this is kind of off topic for the thread. Oops. This sort of thing is pretty sad. To be kind of on topic.

Well, awful or not, Jimmy has come out for Rand on his talk page. The article has been 'restored' to its former glory, and Lar has left a threat on my talk page. This one is actually worthy of a ban (probably my final ban, but, yes, worth it).

I'm not at all interested in the underlying content issue here. You're simply not acknowledging my point: it is wrong for you to insult a tenured academic who is expert in the area in question and at the same time whine about academic respectability.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right, I have never noticed you had any interest in underlying content issues. Peter Damian (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hicks, by the way, also received a grant

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-1917-S_hicks.aspx

from the Objectivist Centre.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Lar]

Well, awful or not, Jimmy has come out for Rand on his talk page. The article has been 'restored' to its former glory, and Lar has left a threat on my talk page. This one is actually worthy of a ban (probably my final ban, but, yes, worth it).

More of a prediction, really. Since you're cruising for a block, I shall not oblige you. But not to worry, someone will soon enough.

[Peter Damian]

Well, awful or not, Jimmy has come out for Rand on his talk page. The article has been 'restored' to its former glory, and Lar has left a threat on my talk page. This one is actually worthy of a ban (probably my final ban, but, yes, worth it).

More of a prediction, really. Since you're cruising for a block, I shall not oblige you. But not to worry, someone will soon enough.

'Cruising for a block' is an obvious threat. And what is the block for? 4 academic philosophers on the Rand page supported my re-write of the introduction. 1 idiot troll opposed. Wales supports the troll. I lose the battle. As for the war...

[Lar]

'Cruising for a block' is an obvious threat.

No, it's an observation of your behaviour. I don't threaten.

Guess what, you might be right about the Ayn Rand article. But if you actually want to fix it, you're going the wrong way about it. And you know it, since you stated:

On being difficult to work with, that is the whole and entire point. I have no desire to 'work with' anyone here. Why on earth would I?

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.

[Peter Damian]

'Cruising for a block' is an obvious threat.

No, it's an observation of your behaviour. I don't threaten.

Guess what, you might be right about the Ayn Rand article. But if you actually want to fix it, you're going the wrong way about it. And you know it, since you stated:

On being difficult to work with, that is the whole and entire point. I have no desire to 'work with' anyone here. Why on earth would I?

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.

No actually I have some very deeply held principles involving conflicts of interest that prompt many of my, er, dramas on Wikipedia.

And on writing an encyclopedia, I have today written a new introduction to the Rand article, plus a rewrite of the whole of [[Rational egoism]]. Prior to that I put a considerable amount of work into [[Neurolinguistic programming]] that involved a lot of emailing experts on the subject, library work and so on. The new article won praise from a number of people. oh yes, and [[NLP and science]].

All you care about is the crappy civility thing. Well fuck off, Lar.

[tarantino]

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.

Is that the sole reason you're there. Lar, to write an encyclopedia?

[Lar]

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.

Is that the sole reason you're there. Lar, to write an encyclopedia?

No. But it at least is one of them. I'm not sure Peter can actually say that and have it be true. Regardless of how much good writing he does! It's not, based on my observations, very likely that his reasons for doing the writing are to advance the project. Of course that means I may have formed an incorrect theory of mind.

All you care about is the crappy civility thing.

{{citation needed}}

Well fuck off, Lar.

As charming as ever, aren't you?

[EricBarbour]

No, it's an observation of your behaviour. I don't threaten.
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.

Gee, Larry, how is this supposed to "build an encyclopedia"?
Other than an Objectivist encyclopedia?

He's trying to point out a real problem. WP has an obvious pro-objectivist bias,
because Jimbo does. And so do a few other high-ranking admins.

And you're waving your hands and going "pish tosh".

Yes, Larry, you don't threaten.
Or do you?

Other people apparently do your backstabbing.
Funny how things just vanish.

I suspect most people, whether Christian, Muslim, atheist, Buddist, whatever, would take a look at statements like

Her fundamental principle is that [[self-interest]] is the true standard of morality and that [[altruism]] is profoundly immoral.

and say, this is the opinion of a crazy person.

For a guy who went around to the news media, bragging about hacking Lego's website, you've got a lot of nerve to criticize Damian for hacking Wikipedia's damaged editing process. He may be doing it in an "uncivil" fashion, according to your relentless standards of Randian logic. But you're no prize either.

Please note that I have confined my criticism to only what's available on WP or WR. If you'd like me to commit to a proper ad-hominem criticism, based on your personality and character vis-a-vis Mr. Damian and qualifications to discuss Ayn Rand's status as a philosopher, please feel free to ask for it.

[Milton Roe]

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.

Is that the sole reason you're there. Lar, to write an encyclopedia?

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) Ah, you funny man. That all depends on how you define "encyclopedia," now, doesn't it?

Wikipedia is a giant changable vulgar online Baedeker, Who's Who, Book of Lists, Dump of Trivia, mass of misconceptions, remarkable linked nuggets of truth, repository of popular culture, biography, tabloid, cultivated corporate directory, and mega-almanac of various kinds of stuff. Really, it's not like anything that has previously existed. It only calls itself an encyclopedia when some semblance of respectablity-by-proxy-word is needed. Usually in order to win some kind of grant, or accolade or award from the clueless world which hears "encyclopedia" and has memories of "Britannica," or feels some ghost of idealism born of Voltaire and Diderot and the Enlightenment.

But Wikipedia is not that. Not now. When not dressed up in white-tie, tophat and tails for the establishment, Wikipedia is happy to point out all those ways it isn't at all like Britannica. But it won't give up the idea or term "encyclopedia," because in the Wiki-world, words mean exactly what you want them to mean, no more and no less. And if you want to work the words extra hard, you can do that, and you don't even have to pay them more for it, as in Alice In Wonderland, because it's all done by volunteers.

So, since the world "encyclopedia" is defined privately by Wikipedia, and amounts to whatever they want to define it as (and it changes regularly), the phrase "I'm here to write an encyclopedia" actually translates to "I'm here to write whatever I want to, and can get away with writing, according to my political power on this site." But that doesn't sound nearly so cool. Or noble.

And just as definitional authority on a given website flows from the power of administration, so also does truthiness. Does an "encyclopedia" have to be "true"? No, we don't go there, either.

The accusation: "You're not here to write an encyclopedia" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) means "You're not here to write Wikipedia" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif) which in turn means "You're not here to do as we tell you to do." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

To which the answer has been given above, already, I think: "So fucking what?" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif) Convince me that you're smarter than I am, or know more, and then I'll be embarrassed at my answer on that. Okay? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif)

Milt

[tarantino]

Great post, Milton. WR has missed you.

I might add that if you compare the article edits of Lar, Peter and Milton it is quite apparent who comes in a distant third in adding encyclopedic (using either the real world or WP definition) content to Wikipedia.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Well, awful or not, Jimmy has come out for Rand on his talk page. The article has been 'restored' to its former glory, and Lar has left a threat on my talk page. This one is actually worthy of a ban (probably my final ban, but, yes, worth it).

More of a prediction, really. Since you're cruising for a block, I shall not oblige you. But not to worry, someone will soon enough.

Lar, I was puzzled by your comments about LaRouche on the BLP board, but now it begins to make sense, because I can see that you are in fact sympathetic to Ayn Rand. Rand and LaRouche are pretty much diametrical opposites, and I think that this is the underlying basis for the rather extraordinary treatment of LaRouche at Wikipedia.

[wikiwhistle]

This randy-ism seems to be in essence LaVeyan Satanism, which LaVey himself described as

"just Ayn Rand’s philosophy, with ceremony and ritual added."

This Randism's not necessarily my particular thing. There's no romance in it.

[Milton Roe]

Lar, I was puzzled by your comments about LaRouche on the BLP board, but now it begins to make sense, because I can see that you are in fact sympathetic to Ayn Rand. Rand and LaRouche are pretty much diametrical opposites, and I think that this is the underlying basis for the rather extraordinary treatment of LaRouche at Wikipedia.

I'm scratching my head trying to envision somebody the diametrical opposite of Ayn Rand. Timothy Leary? Maybe if you could take the Dalai Lama out on the town, and somehow get him drunk enough to be really stupid.....

Golly, is that what LaRouche is like? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

[Milton Roe]

This Randism's not necessarily my particular thing. There's no romance in it.

In Basic Principles of Objectivist Epistemology there isn't, for sure. But her novels are extravigantly, unidimensionally, cartoonishly romantic. Nietzsche-shrillly-protesting-Wagnerishly romantic. There's even a bodice-ripper scene or two. There was a side to Rand that Taxwoman would have liked, and vice-versa. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Proabivouac]

Lar, I was puzzled by your comments about LaRouche on the BLP board, but now it begins to make sense, because I can see that you are in fact sympathetic to Ayn Rand.

Boy, does that explain a lot.

Suffice it to say I would put my honesty, integrity, and general moral up against anyone, anywhere, anytime.

LOL.

[wikiwhistle]

Suffice it to say I would put my honesty, integrity, and general moral up against anyone, anywhere, anytime.

LOL.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle:

[Cla68]

Yes, Larry, you don't threaten.
Or do you?

I don't see a threat there.

For a guy who went around to the news media, bragging about hacking Lego's website.

I read those links and I don't think that's an accurate description at all of what happened. Anyway, I don't know much about Rand. All I can say is that I liked the movie, "The Fountainhead" which is like saying I don't know the Bible but liked the movies "The 10 Commandments" and "Ben Hur". By the way, I think that the intro for the Rand article is NPOV as written.

[Milton Roe]

Great post, Milton. WR has missed you.

Why, thank you. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) It’s good to be back alive. I’ll reply a bit more in the vacation lounge thread.

[Alison]

Lar, I was puzzled by your comments about LaRouche on the BLP board, but now it begins to make sense, because I can see that you are in fact sympathetic to Ayn Rand. Rand and LaRouche are pretty much diametrical opposites, and I think that this is the underlying basis for the rather extraordinary treatment of LaRouche at Wikipedia.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

Lar went head-to-head with Fr. Rob Dye from Tulsa OK? Wow - there's a name from the past. I knew that guy too (in a trollish kinda way (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) ) from use(less)net, back in the 1990s. Small world ...

I reject altruism and I reject sacrifice, as I have defined it

Dude? That's kinda wacked (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

[zvook]

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.

[Milton Roe]

Lar went head-to-head with Fr. Rob Dye from Tulsa OK? Wow - there's a name from the past. I knew that guy too (in a trollish kinda way (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) ) from use(less)net, back in the 1990s. Small world ...

I reject altruism and I reject sacrifice, as I have defined it

Dude? That's kinda wacked (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

But remember that Objectivists have caused endless confusion by redefining altrusim and self-sacrifice (as we historically have used the words) to suit their own purposes, so that they can reject them (in their new definitions) as strawmen and emblems of Kantian evil. The ordinary kinds of antruism and self-sacrifice that we know-- parents sacrifice for children, a soldier's sacrifice to defend his country, is perfectly fine with Randroids. And they'd be fine with self-sacrifice on Gods' orders too, since that would be in your best interest to follow orders of the Big Guy, except they don't believe in him. So self-sacrifice THERE isn't really the primary philosophical problem.

The deal is that Randians believe that a lot of people go around sacrificing themselves for reasons that don't make them feel good as empathetic acts, or supporting of their own beliefs. Kant said that if doing something makes you feel good or satisfied in any way, it can't be moral, even if (especially if) it involves self-sacrifice. Personally, I doubt this kind of Kantian type of morally thing thing is practiced very much in the real world, but Randroids think everybody reads Kant and knows him by heart, and that though Kant's many appologists, there are a lot of suffering unhappy altruists out there, and that this happens a lot, and they're convinced it's completely screwing up the world, taking away people's happiness. And Randroids aim to stamp this non-fun Kantian morality right out.

That counts as a "mad belief." But there it is. You can't convince them it's not true. They believe it on the world of Rand, and that's that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Duh.

Milt

[Peter Damian]

All you care about is the crappy civility thing.

{{citation needed}}

I apologise for the f--- off remark. On 'citation needed', well you never came into this argument until I called WilyD an idiot for saying that Aristotle was 'overrated'. Is that an idiotic remark or not?

In all your subsequent arguments you never once addressed the logic of my argument - which is that I am not prepared to collaborate with cult followers, because they are beyond reason, and I only work with reasonable people. You just seize on bits of incivility, as though they were crucial to the logic.

You also ignored the way I contribute to articles. If you had bothered to look at the edit trail, you will see I collaborate a lot by making suggestions, encouraging the people who ought to be encouraged by friendly advice, and so on.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Moulton]

Title: Mister Randman
Artist: Peter Damian
Composer: Pat Ballard and Barsoom Tork Associates
Midi: Mister Sandman (Synth Version)
Midi: Mister Sandman (Piano Jazz Version)

Mister Randman, bring Milton a dream
Make it the goodest that he's ever seen
Give him some quips from Nietzsche and Nagel
And let him spend his lonesome nights with Hegel

Randman, I'm so adrift
My best ideas come up short shrift
Please turn on your magic beam
Mister Randman, bring me a dream

Mister Randman, bring Lar a dream
Make it the mootest that he's ever seen
Give him the word that he's not a rover
Please say his dreamless nights are over

Randman, I'm so bereft
Don't have no thinkers to sit on my left
Please turn on your magic beam
Mister Randman, bring me a dream

Mister Randman, bring Jimbo a dream
Give him some vision with a come-hither gleam
Give him a heart so he's not a Nazi
And lots of boogie tunes like Liberace

Mister Randman, bring me a dream
Not this nightmare of geshrailisch scream
Bring me a tune to sing with abandon
And lifetime therapy with Nathaniel Branden

Mister Randman, some ideas to hold
Would be so peachy before we're too old
So please turn on your magic beam
Mister Randman, bring us
Please, please, please
Mister Randman, bring us a dream

CopyClef 2009 Pat Ballard and Barsoom Tork Associates.
Resurrection Hackware. All Wrongs Reversed.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[wikiwhistle]

"Give him a heart so he's not a Nazi
And lots of boogie tunes like Liberace "

Love it (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[Peter Damian]

And here on my talk page this afternoon I find this:

Thanks for your message. I support your efforts, but won't spend any more time on Ayn Rand myself. I think it's a waste of time, and highlights perfectly the main flaw of Wikipedia - that unlike with proper encyclopedias, experts and idiots have equal say, and fanatics (no matter how amateur or idiotic) can always get their way if they stay up late enough and make enough edits and reversions. (Not that I am an expert in this particular case.) Larry Sanger's phrase that Wikipedia is 'committed to amateurism' sums it up perfectly. Ben Finn (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do people like Lar come back to the subject of civility, as though that were the problem of recruiting good editors?

Doesn't this make it perfectly clear that incivility is not the problem? Lar? Answers please?

[Herschelkrustofsky]

This randy-ism seems to be in essence LaVeyan Satanism, which LaVey himself described as

"just Ayn Rand’s philosophy, with ceremony and ritual added."

Cute, and maybe even insightful.

I'm scratching my head trying to envision somebody the diametrical opposite of Ayn Rand. Timothy Leary?

Not so insightful. Rand and Leary were drifting in the same direction.

[GlassBeadGame]

Well, awful or not, Jimmy has come out for Rand on his talk page. The article has been 'restored' to its former glory, and Lar has left a threat on my talk page. This one is actually worthy of a ban (probably my final ban, but, yes, worth it).

More of a prediction, really. Since you're cruising for a block, I shall not oblige you. But not to worry, someone will soon enough.

Lar, I was puzzled by your comments about LaRouche on the BLP board, but now it begins to make sense, because I can see that you are in fact sympathetic to Ayn Rand. Rand and LaRouche are pretty much diametrical opposites, and I think that this is the underlying basis for the rather extraordinary treatment of LaRouche at Wikipedia.

I'm surprised by Lar's post. I had pretty much accepted his stated "I'm a libertarian, but not an "Objectivist" at face value. But run of the mill libertarians don't go on about the evils of "self sacrifice" or "altruism." In fact most (non-techie type) in the US are probably some kind of evangelical Christian and don't mind some kind of "living for others." They just don't want much government and especially want people to be free from government interference in personal matters (although they are often conflicted over reproductive rights.) You don't see Ron Paul engaging in discussion within these parameters.

Lars shows himself to pretty much be an "objectivist." When he says ¡Libertarian, sí! ¡Objectivist, no! he seems to pretty much means he doesn't buy the cult of personality while swallowing her doctrine hook, line and sinker. Just another nice guy buying into techie culture's received political doctrine. Things could be worse as one book that gave me all answers could have been supplied by L. Ron Hubbard and not Rand. Although even Hubbard's writing is better than Rand's.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Kant said that if doing something makes you feel good or satisfied in any way, it can't be moral, even if (especially if) it involves self-sacrifice. Personally, I doubt this kind of Kantian type of morally thing thing is practiced very much in the real world, but Randroids think everybody reads Kant and knows him by heart, and that though Kant's many appologists, there are a lot of suffering unhappy altruists out there, and that this happens a lot, and they're convinced it's completely screwing up the world, taking away people's happiness. And Randroids aim to stamp this non-fun Kantian morality right out.

The Randroids' solution to the problem of Kantstipation boils down to "fuck you, I'm gonna be immoral." A more thoughtful response was provided by Friedrich Schiller, who posited the existence of the Schöne Seele ("beautiful soul",) the individual in which Pflicht (duty) and Neigung (inclination) were united, rather than at war with one another. He called this "educating the emotions," or in the vernacular, "growing up." Great classical art plays an important role in educating the emotions, as we often find in real-life examples of historical individuals who were not conflicted about doing the good.

The Randian tirades against altruism are just adolescent rage. Schiller writes, for example in this essay, that self-sacrifice can be the embodiment of real human freedom. Animals, like Randroids, are incapable of acting against the drive for self-preservation, and are therefore essentially slaves to it.

[Kelly Martin]

Wikipedia is a giant changable vulgar online Baedeker, Who's Who, Book of Lists, Dump of Trivia, mass of misconceptions, remarkable linked nuggets of truth, repository of popular culture, biography, tabloid, cultivated corporate directory, and mega-almanac of various kinds of stuff. Really, it's not like anything that has previously existed. It only calls itself an encyclopedia when some semblance of respectablity-by-proxy-word is needed.

Bingo. Wikipedia is only an encyclopedia because it needed some cachet of respectability. In reality, Wikipedia is more along the lines of an information dump.

In a cesspool, the biggest turds float to the top. Same seems to be true of Wikipedia.

[Peter Damian]

Kant said that if doing something makes you feel good or satisfied in any way, it can't be moral, even if (especially if) it involves self-sacrifice. Personally, I doubt this kind of Kantian type of morally thing thing is practiced very much in the real world, but Randroids think everybody reads Kant and knows him by heart, and that though Kant's many appologists, there are a lot of suffering unhappy altruists out there, and that this happens a lot, and they're convinced it's completely screwing up the world, taking away people's happiness. And Randroids aim to stamp this non-fun Kantian morality right out.

The Randroids' solution to the problem of Kantstipation boils down to "fuck you, I'm gonna be immoral." A more thoughtful response was provided by Friedrich Schiller, who posited the existence of the Schöne Seele ("beautiful soul",) the individual in which Pflicht (duty) and Neigung (inclination) were united, rather than at war with one another. He called this "educating the emotions," or in the vernacular, "growing up." Great classical art plays an important role in educating the emotions, as we often find in real-life examples of historical individuals who were not conflicted about doing the good.

The Randian tirades against altruism are just adolescent rage. Schiller writes, for example in this essay, that self-sacrifice can be the embodiment of real human freedom. Animals, like Randroids, are incapable of acting against the drive for self-preservation, and are therefore essentially slaves to it.

What I don't understand is why self-interest is supposed to be rational. Why do we single out ourselves? It is clearly irrational to prefer the interests of people called 'Tim' unless there is a reason given for the preference. What makes ourselves different? Of all the people in the world, what makes me special, and what singles me out for special treatment?

You could argue that this is what people naturally do (I admit I tend to). But the point is, what makes this rational? Difficult.

It does seem as though many of the things you say can't be seriously intended, but I'm not sure my impressions will agree with your intentions. You've pointed out that Wikipedia is beset by lunatics, POV warriors, cult followers, the gullible, con men, the querulous and the hopelessly unequipped. We've also got the entire upside, so I'd say we're a pretty accurate representation of humanity in that respect. Most institutions with lofty goals have effective methods of weeding people out - unfortunately, as you've noted, we have a difficult time managing that important task. On the other hand, our inefficiency permits us to retain those well-educated few who simply are unable to consistently manage working with others online. Avruch T 19:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I seem to have missed 'the entire upside'. Where did you spot those? Peter Damian (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Milton Roe]

I'm scratching my head trying to envision somebody the diametrical opposite of Ayn Rand. Timothy Leary?

Not so insightful. Rand and Leary were drifting in the same direction.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) I think a remarkable and IMHO ridiculous statement like this needs some expansion. Compare and contrast, and good luck. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Milton Roe]

The Randian tirades against altruism are just adolescent rage. Schiller writes, for example in this essay, that self-sacrifice can be the embodiment of real human freedom. Animals, like Randroids, are incapable of acting against the drive for self-preservation, and are therefore essentially slaves to it.

Animals act against the drive for individual self-preservation all the time! Most especially when it comes to matters of reproduction and protection of young, or even the group (in social animals-- think of bees dying to sting for the hive, etc). Rand had no problem with any of this, even for humans, but felt that it had to derive from some internalized set of values (educating the emotions would not be a foreign idea to Objectivists) which furthered the individual's purposes and self-worth. Whereas, presumably, animals do it "instinctively" or without intellectual justification or comprehension. Rand hated the thought of self-sacrifice if it didn't feel good to do it, with the good feeling deriving from a logical reduction of proper action to proper emotion. Basically, Rand sought for a rational reason for individuals to do what animals often do without thinking (as in a mother standing between danger and her children). I think that in this she failed spectacularly, and (as usual) ended up only with "after the fact" justifications for doing whatever she wanted to do, or felt impelled to do. Which things were sometimes selfish and sometimes what the rest of us call "altrusitic," except as regards the last, she refused to recognize both the word and action for anything she did, and merely denied it and called it evil.

Alas, re-labeling something does not make it, in essense, into something else. Randroids again and again sought to remake their world by remaking their language, but never quite figured out that one does not control the other (except, perhaps, in the virtual reality of a computer, which may be why you find so many Randians stuck in online worlds, and down the drain of word-controlled VR).

But look, we need to simply back off and see where Rand came from. She was a Russian Jewish girl whose family store had been stolen by Communists. She was pissed off about this all her life, and had every right to be. She identified the problem as the "State" (particularly the heavily socialist state) seeking to demand the same kinds of self-sacrifice from individuals that ordinarily they are willing only to make to their closer kin-groups, for example their children. The maffia Rand would have understood; the Communists she never did. But instead of merely recognising that the Communists are just a bigger variety of the maffia-- a bunch of psychpathic bastards who demand that you sacrifice you and yours, for them and theirs, Rand went looking for some philosophical underpinnings to the likes of Lenin and Stalin. And for some reason (God knows why) she fastened on poor Kant. But it wasn't Immanual Kants' deathcamps and secret police. Paranoid psychos like Stalin or Saddam don't need Kant to put such things in place. Reality is so much simpler.

[Lar]

Paranoid psychos like Stalin or Saddam don't need Kant to put such things in place. Reality is so much simpler.

And less black and white than Rand painted it.

Oh, where to start with this thread.

First, on my "bragging about hacking LEGO"... don't believe everything you read in the press. Even the techie press.
The "hack" was that some folk figured out that, hey, a particular LEGO Factory file that is held locally is XML and the tags are pretty self explanatory, and you can make use of that information to do a better job of designing models so as to not get a lot of parts you don't really need. No systems were broken into or anything like that. So far the legion of doom hasn't called me.

Second, on sacrifice/altruism. One of the many reasons I'm not the fan of Rand I was over 10 years ago (when that LUGNET thread was written) is the redefinition of things, which I've come to realise is really a bad job. I expect it would be a lot clearer if Objectivists didn't try to make words mean what they wanted them to mean.

I stand behind the notion that I am not keen on sacrifice or altruism defined the way they do or did... but it's not a very meaningful term if no one else even gets what is meant. So it's bad rhetoric.

By the more conventional meaning of the term, we all sacrifice things every day. I sacrifice sleeping in to get up, I sacrifice playing games to post here, and so on. Those aren't very important sacrifices, really, although in every case, we give something up (the sacrifice) to get something else, whether tangible or intangible. More important things, with more meaningful things given up, are sacrifices like giving blood, or making donations to charity, or volunteering to join the volunteer fire department, or the army. (and most people if you ask them, wouldn't call those sacrifices, necessarily, just choices. That's what Randites were getting at but like so many things, they do a poor job of explaining it)

That choosing things is fine, natural, expected, you do it, I do it, we all do it. It's when the guy with the gun comes along and says "your money or your life" (ever been mugged? it's not a lot of fun) that it's a "sacrifice" I'm not so keen on. I don't want to give him either of those things, so it's not a voluntary gift of one or the other. That's the sort of sacrifice that ought to be rejected as not being something I support. (I go along, I'd rather not be dead, but I'm not condoning it)

Or when the person soliciting charity instead of appealing to your desire to help others because they are worthy or because they have suffered misfortune that is no fault of your own, insists that you should help someone despite them not deserving it. That doesn't happen very often in real life, in fact nowadays it's almost a contrived example, but when it does, I don't like it either.

Right now, we taxpayers in the US are all being asked to (apparently altruistically) give up our tax dollars to pay for the TARP. Why "altruistically"? Because it turns out that the benefit touted, that it was going to help the economy... hasn't really come to pass. 300+ billion has been disbursed and no one can explain exactly what good it did. That is altruism, that is a sacrifice, I don't really condone. Can't do much about it short of leaving, but I don't condone it.

I'm not a Randite. Maybe I was once, 25 years ago, but even 10 years ago? No. I'm more like Milton Roe politically, and that's about it. I only voted Libertarian this time because it was safe, Obama was going to sweep my state without any trouble.

Finally The idea that my thinking that the Larouche article needs balance is because I'm some secret disciple of Ayn Rand? That's misdirection. HK, love him as much as I do (and he has many good qualities), has a bit of a blind spot about his beloved LL and doesn't want to see the article be balanced. Kind of like how the Randites have a blind spot about their beloved AR. I think I'm over being blinded, and was a long time ago.

Hope that helps. If not, carry on anyway.

I'm surprised by Lar's post.

On rereading it, so was I. It was over 10 years ago, after all. People change. I just got done writing a long explanation, but still.

[dtobias]

Whatever may be good or bad about the respective philosophies of Rand and Larouche, they both seem capable of atttracting fanatical cultists who don't show a particularly balanced, nuanced view of their idols.

[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.

[EricBarbour]

Great post, Milton. WR has missed you.

Why, thank you. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) It’s good to be back alive. I’ll reply a bit more in the vacation lounge thread.

Yeah, you lucky such and such. Off scuba diving in Palau.
While we're sitting here freezing our balls off and reading Lar's blather.

But look, we need to simply back off and see where Rand came from. She was a Russian Jewish girl whose family store had been stolen by Communists. She was pissed off about this all her life, and had every right to be. She identified the problem as the "State" (particularly the heavily socialist state) seeking to demand the same kinds of self-sacrifice from individuals that ordinarily they are willing only to make to their closer kin-groups, for example their children. The maffia Rand would have understood; the Communists she never did. But instead of merely recognising that the Communists are just a bigger variety of the maffia-- a bunch of psychpathic bastards who demand that you sacrifice you and yours, for them and theirs, Rand went looking for some philosophical underpinnings to the likes of Lenin and Stalin. And for some reason (God knows why) she fastened on poor Kant. But it wasn't Immanual Kants' deathcamps and secret police. Paranoid psychos like Stalin or Saddam don't need Kant to put such things in place. Reality is so much simpler.

Well put, thank you. Funny isn't it?

Come to Wikipedia Review, and have reasonably well-mannered discussions with actual, degreed students of philosophy.

Or go to Wikipedia, the so-called "reference", and if you're lucky, and Lar and his ilk haven't fixed it yet.......read crap like this.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I'm scratching my head trying to envision somebody the diametrical opposite of Ayn Rand. Timothy Leary?

Not so insightful. Rand and Leary were drifting in the same direction.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) I think a remarkable and IMHO ridiculous statement like this needs some expansion. Compare and contrast, and good luck. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

I'd like to avoid the extremes of verbosity that often occur in our disputations. Also, a caveat: I have not read Leary in depth (I have, however, read his partner, Richard Alpert/Ram Dass, in depth.) OK: Rand and Leary both reject the idea of a universal human identity, where the individual is primarily concerned with his relationship to history and a sense of responsibility to past and future generations. Alpert/Dass made this explicit with the slogan "Be here now." Leary said he was founding a "new paganism," which jibes rather well with LaVey's take on Rand. I hope that's sufficient.

The Randian tirades against altruism are just adolescent rage. Schiller writes, for example in this essay, that self-sacrifice can be the embodiment of real human freedom. Animals, like Randroids, are incapable of acting against the drive for self-preservation, and are therefore essentially slaves to it.

Animals act against the drive for individual self-preservation all the time! Most especially when it comes to matters of reproduction and protection of young, or even the group (in social animals-- think of bees dying to sting for the hive, etc). Rand had no problem with any of this, even for humans, but felt that it had to derive from some internalized set of values (educating the emotions would not be a foreign idea to Objectivists) which furthered the individual's purposes and self-worth. Whereas, presumably, animals do it "instinctively" or without intellectual justification or comprehension. Rand hated the thought of self-sacrifice if it didn't feel good to do it, with the good feeling deriving from a logical reduction of proper action to proper emotion. Basically, Rand sought for a rational reason for individuals to do what animals often do without thinking (as in a mother standing between danger and her children).

I think you've made my argument for me, which is that animals have a sense of self-preservation that encompasses more than just the individual, and so does Rand, in a roughly analogous way. On the other hand, the idea of self-sacrifice for an idea, after the model of Christ, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, etc. is foreign to both animals and Randroids.

Finally The idea that my thinking that the Larouche article needs balance is because I'm some secret disciple of Ayn Rand? That's misdirection.

You said the article needs balance? Why, who could disagree with that! But you also seemed to find it plausible that LaRouche would be classified as a "fascist." I have seen a tendency among libertarians and/or objectivists to use the term "fascist" in a very broad way to describe people who, for example, don't support the decriminalization of recreational drugs, prostitution, or other so-called "victimless crimes." Likewise, persons who advocate federal regulation of financial markets are called "fascists." I believe that this is an incorrect use of the term. The same applies when Moulton calls moderators who limit his posting "fascists." I think that government institutions have an obligation to find a happy medium between giving free license to individual impulses, and protecting the interests of what our constitution calls the "General Welfare" -- it may be fair to call this "Big Gummint," but not "fascism."

[Peter Damian]

There is some progress in that SlimV has taken it to mediation committee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...iation/Ayn_Rand

But I’m not sure how the mediation committee arrive at their judgment. The main question to be deliberated, which has been raging on the Rand talk page, is whether Rand should be considered a genuine philosopher (as opposed to amateur philosopher, novelist-philosopher, commercially successful writer who had philosophical ideas &c).

How are the mediation committee going to decide this? I don’t recognise any of the names on the list, apart from Postlethwaite and Seicer, but that doesn’t fill me with confidence.

[Bottled_Spider]

The main question to be deliberated, which has been raging on the Rand talk page, is whether Rand should be considered a genuine philosopher (as opposed to amateur philosopher, novelist-philosopher, commercially successful writer who had philosophical ideas &c).

How are the mediation committee going to decide this?

Easy - by using a sliding scale, based on votes made by the woman Rand's many fans, and enemies too. For instance........

Genuine Philosopher? : 0.003 / 10
Amateur Philosopher? : 0.102 / 10
Novelist Philosopher? : 0.185 / 10
Commercially Successful Writer Who Had Philosophical Ideas &c? : 1.002 / 10
Bad Writer With Loonie Semi-Philosophical Ideas? : 11.999 / 10

Etc., etc., etc. I have a good feeling about this idea, should it be taken up by those Wikipedia types, as I'm confident that the result will be a victory for common-sense and decency, i.e. a much-shortened Ayn Rand article along the lines of "Ayn Rand was a loonie-bird writer of utter shite with the philosophical skills of a sack of rancid monkey-spunk. It should be noted that her supposed supporters have never actually managed to finish (Hey! Or even start!) the God-awful 'Atlas Shrugged'. Especially our own, beloved Jimbo."

[Peter Damian]

Update.

I am planning a blog post for this one, has it has a serious consequences for the way philosophy is viewed by the general public. A humorous approach, I think, for which a playful look at the qualifications of the mediation committee would be in order. Here is my attempt so far, contributions welcomed. The ones on Ryan and Seicer cry out for a bit more work, but any gems on the others would be appreciated.

User "Andreven" A 19-year-old student of computer science at Carnegie Mellon University, who apparently started on Wikipedia when he was 13.
User "Daniel", apparently an Australian whose main work is on football and cricket in that country.
User "Keilana", whose user page gives very limited information on what he or she does at Wikipedia.
User "Ryan Postlethwaite", a pharcamology student from the North of England currently working in a garden centre whose main contribution to the project are the articles on [tbc] whose favourite activity is drinking large quantities of beer and 'waking up in place he doesn't know'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ryanpostlethwaite.jpg. Ryan is chair of the mediation committee.
User "Seddon" who has a Latin motto 'non sibi sed omnibus' which means roughly not for ourselves but for all. His main contribution to Wikipedia was an article about the 1988 hurricane season, and a 'featured photo' of a C-17 aircraft.
User "Seicer", whose user page says that he 'slaps giant dicks'. Seicer was famous on Wikipedia for blocking a prize-winning physicist who had complained about some bogus article.
User "Shell Kinney", one of that group of editors with the picture of a cat on her user page. She proclaims "This user practices an esoteric form of Buddhism / Earth mother mythos" which does not augur well, and has contributed to a project on 'Dog breeds'.
User "Sunray", a Canadian, whose main contributions include articles on Canadian humour, Banff, Chinese folk religion, and anthropology.

These are the members of Wikipedia's senior administration who have been elected to judge the difficult question of whether Ayn Rand's work is to be considered serious philosophy or not.

[edit]

WSJ has an article on Rand today (largely sympathetic, though admits she is dismissed as simplistic).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123146363567166677.html

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Lar]

Finally The idea that my thinking that the Larouche article needs balance is because I'm some secret disciple of Ayn Rand? That's misdirection.

You said the article needs balance? Why, who could disagree with that! But you also seemed to find it plausible that LaRouche would be classified as a "fascist." I have seen a tendency among libertarians and/or objectivists to use the term "fascist" in a very broad way to describe people who, for example, don't support the decriminalization of recreational drugs, prostitution, or other so-called "victimless crimes." Likewise, persons who advocate federal regulation of financial markets are called "fascists." I believe that this is an incorrect use of the term. The same applies when Moulton calls moderators who limit his posting "fascists." I think that government institutions have an obligation to find a happy medium between giving free license to individual impulses, and protecting the interests of what our constitution calls the "General Welfare" -- it may be fair to call this "Big Gummint," but not "fascism."

No.

My own opinion of Larouche is completely irrelevant.

Who libertarians call fascists is completely irrelevant as well.

Onwiki, I make no statement whatever about whether Larouche plausibly is or isn't anything in my own personal view. What I find plausible is that Larouche is regarded as a fascist by enough notable critics to make it one of the things that belong in the lede. As the cites Will provided show. Nothing to do with my views at all.

Will and I have our differences, and if he pushes to have Chip and Dennis be the main sources/cites/whatever, I'd push back. But he's right about putting this term in the lede. Which is all that big long discussion was about, what to put in the lede.

Mostly I stay out of political article discussions, and the potential for this sort of mischaracterization of my motives is one of the reasons I intended to stay out completely. This particular matter is settled so maybe I can go back to not paying attention to political articles.

[Milton Roe]

Will and I have our differences, and if he pushes to have Chip and Dennis be the main sources/cites/whatever, I'd push back. But he's right about putting this term in the lede. Which is all that big long discussion was about, what to put in the lede.

The introductory summary paragraph or small set of paragraphs of an article is usually called a "lead". It's spelled like the metal, but of course pronounced differently. The two words are famous homographs.

Journalists have been trying to spell it "lede" for years, but have yet to get this into standard dictionaries. Some history:

http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20001128

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lede

None of this is helped by the fact that typemetal used to be mostly lead, and sometimes there were lead lead strips....

Anyway, the MoS (manual of style) prefers "lead" and I think we should keep it that way to avoid confusion in people who've never encountered the other somewhat rare and perhaps nonstandard variant.

Pedantically,

Milt

[Kurt M. Weber]

I still find it absolutely unbelievable that people subscribe to Ayn Rand's abhorrent views, believe that that nonsense is applicable to real life,

Please show me a flaw in her logic or premises.

[Sarcasticidealist]

These are the members of Wikipedia's senior administration who have been elected to judge the difficult question of whether Ayn Rand's work is to be considered serious philosophy or not.

You might be under a misapprehension about what the Mediation Committee does: it doesn't make content decisions (nobody does, at Wikipedia), but rather mediates between disagreeing factions in an effort to make them agree to a resolution. In that respect, it's much more accurately named than is Arb Comm which, as noted, doesn't do a lot of arbitrating. In another respect, though, it's less accurately named: while Arb Comm does function as a committee, Med Comm functions much more as a pool of mediators, with one being assigned to each case.

If you were not under any such misapprehension, my apologies for wasting your time.

This post has been edited by sarcasticidealist:

[cyofee]

I still find it absolutely unbelievable that people subscribe to Ayn Rand's abhorrent views, believe that that nonsense is applicable to real life,

Please show me a flaw in her logic or premises.

That probably wouldn't be in his rational self-interest.

[Milton Roe]

I still find it absolutely unbelievable that people subscribe to Ayn Rand's abhorrent views, believe that that nonsense is applicable to real life,

Please show me a flaw in her logic or premises.

Trolling again, are we, Kurt?

An obvious flaw in her premises was that there is no difference between inductive and deductive statements, otherwise known as analytic vs. synthetic assertions, or (if you like) between assertions-true-by-definition (e.g. "humans are mammals") and things which may or may not be true, but certainly aren't true by definition (all swans are white, the Sun will rise tomorrow in the East, etc).

In order to assert this messy synthesis between these two types of logic, Rand tried mightily to redefine the very idea of a synthetic statement. Alas for her, whether she personally redefined it or not, we still need a word for the problem of induction and the statements which arise from inductive reasoning of various kinds. That word was "synthetic." Redefining "synthetic" doesn't make the problem of evaluating synthetic statements go away. Rand kept promising an answer to induction, but provided none. We are thus left with a "philosophy" which does not even address the most interesting parts of philosophy, science, and epistemology. Whoop-de-do, Kurt.

Rand also believed in "contextural certainty" which was the idea that there was only one rational hypothesis (thing to believe provisionally) from any given data-set. To which we must add a big {{citation needed}} because she never proved this totally-outrageous idea. So that would be a "flaw." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Why should I not spend my time more profitably with Karnap or W.V. Quine or even Popper? Quine is especially fun, as he did quite the opposite of Rand in deciding that analytic and synthetic propositions should not be distinguished, because (as he thought) we aren't even totally sure about analytic ones! http://www.mun.ca/phil/codgito/vol3/v3doc4.html. I imagine Quine's cell is right next to Rand's in Hell, where they argue about Kant's a priori knowledge, not knowing that Kant himself is on the cell on the other side, gagged and forced to listen, but not talk. And Piekoff in due time will be down the hall a long way, where both Rand and Quine can shout at him, but nobody can quite with certainty make out the words at either end....

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

Trolling again, are we, Kurt?

This feels familiar...

Ah - Master Weber has forgotten responses to the last time he made this kind of "challenge" -

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...indpost&p=87762
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...indpost&p=87711

[Sarcasticidealist]

And now the mediation case has been rejected and an Arbitration case filed.

Update, fifteen minutes later: and now the mediation has been unrejected.

This post has been edited by sarcasticidealist:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

It's interesting to watch the new, anti-establishment SlimVirgin at work at [[Talk:Ayn Rand]].

[Anonymous editor]

I still find it absolutely unbelievable that people subscribe to Ayn Rand's abhorrent views, believe that that nonsense is applicable to real life,

Please show me a flaw in her logic or premises.

That probably wouldn't be in his rational self-interest.

Best post of the thread.


=====

For the record, the correct spelling is lead, not lede.

[Sarcasticidealist]

For the record, the correct spelling is lead, not lede.

The OED agrees with you, but Merriam-Webster accepts "lede". From this I infer that it depends on which side of the American border you find yourself. But perhaps that was your point all along, and I was just too dense to catch that.

[Moulton]

Los Obliviados y Los Olvidados

I still find it absolutely unbelievable that people subscribe to Ayn Rand's abhorrent views, believe that that nonsense is applicable to real life,

Please show me a flaw in her logic or premises.

When I was just out of college, I had trouble diagnosing the flaw in Ayn Rand's notion of Objectivism. It occurred to me that having scientifically objective models of the world around us was a perfectly valid perspective.

It took me several decades to find the flaw.

When I was in college, my fraternity brothers criticized me for being "cocky". It was a word whose meaning was entirely unclear to me.

What they meant, of course, was that I came across as over-confident in my book-learning, a character trait they found annoying and off-putting. And I found their alienating attitude toward me inexplicably perplexing.

Part of the flaw in Ayn Rand's philosophy can be found in her failed relationship with Nathaniel Branden. Branden, being a psychologist and psychotherapist, was keenly aware of the kind of emotions that his clients routinely dealt with: anxiety, confusion, frustration, despair. His clients were anything but cocksure of themselves. Therapists deal with problems of unfinished Bildungsroman: their clients are very much a work in progress, full of anxiety and self-doubt, endlessly questioning themselves and worrying about their undiagnosed, unanalyzed, and uncorrected shortcomings.

In his second book, People of the Lie: The Hope For Healing Human Evil, M. Scott Peck recounted his difficulty dealing with young clients whose parents were more like Ayn Rand. He would treat the adolescent children whose parents were obliviously cocksure of themselves, whilst their children manifested the anxiety and self-doubt lacking in their parents.

If you want to glimpse an insight into the chasm between Nathaniel Branden and Ayn Rand, read M. Scott Peck's book.

What therapists like Branden and Peck sought to develop was empathy — the ability to apprehend the affective emotional states of those who were anything but cocksure, and become a conscientious and loving attendant to their journey of Bildungsroman, their life journey of building their character.

The characters in Ayn Rand's novels appear, like Athena, fully formed from the head of Zeus, skipping over the years of development that educators and therapists attend. Contrast that with the Harry Potter character, whose seven-volume story is entirely one of Bildungsroman, full of the drama of self-doubt.

A good scientist is not cocksure. A good scientist adopts a healthy attitude of skepticism, including a level of Socratic self-skepticism that enables a humble scientist to diagnose the subtle shortcomings of emerging theories (and derivative practices). A good scientist tries every imaginable way to disprove all hypotheses before daring to imagine that any flight of fancy might be an objectively accurate model of the world around us.

This is the recurring flaw of the Randian character — adopting delusional beliefs (haphazard flights of fancy) and arrogantly acting on them without engaging in the rigorous scientific and Socratic process of conscientious self-examination. On Wikipedia, we often see this error when Admins form haphazard theories of mind regarding other editors, and then arrogantly act on those unexamined flights of fancy as if they were the objective truth handed down by Yahweh on stone tablets.

Were a Randian Objectivist to become more like an authentic scientist, he or she would become more like Nathaniel Branden, M. Scott Peck, Seymour Papert, or Sherry Turkle, immersed in the subtle sociological and psychological aspects of cognition, affect, and learning.

It is easy for a young Objectivist to naively overlook the role of emotions in learning and personal growth. In one week, I'll be 64 years old. It's taken me the last quarter century to begin to understand the subtle interplay of cognition, affect, and learning. It's an overlooked subject you won't find explored in Randian Objectivism.

[Peter Damian]

I discuss this in my philosophy blog here

http://ocham.blogspot.com/2009/01/ayn-rand...-wikipedia.html

I am planning a series of posts aimed at the philosophy profession, so that they can understand Wikipedia better.

[dtobias]

In one week, I'll be 64 years old.

Will anyone still need you or feed you? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Moulton]

In one week, I'll be 64 years old.

Will anyone still need you or feed you? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Ask around. It's an interesting litmus test.

About twenty years ago, I discovered that I have a knack for dividing the polis right down the middle. The editor of Artificial Intelligence Magazine had picked up a book review that I had written and posted on UseNet. He requested permission to reprint it in a forthcoming issue of the magazine. Of course I gladly granted him permission. Two months later, he reported that my book review had split his Editorial Board right down the middle. He said he had never seen them that polarized over such a seemingly innocuous item.

For the last twenty years I've been trying to pin down the principal component analysis that efficiently explains what half the potential audience is so violently allergic to.

[Milton Roe]

About twenty years ago, I discovered that I have a knack for dividing the polis right down the middle. The editor of Artificial Intelligence Magazine had picked up a book review that I had written and posted on UseNet. He requested permission to reprint it in a forthcoming issue of the magazine. Of course I gladly granted him permission. Two months later, he reported that my book review had split his Editorial Board right down the middle. He said he had never seen them that polarized over such a seemingly innocuous item.

For the last twenty years I've been trying to pin down the principal component analysis that efficiently explains what half the potential audience is so violently allergic to.

One problem is that you use a lot of historical allusions that the average reader has no clue about.

You might take a leaf from Shelley*, and actually annotate yourself. Heavily.

Milton

*Percy Bysshe Shelley, 19th century poet who knew a lot of classical Latin and Greek stuff, whereas his audience didn't. So he swallowed his pride.

In one week, I'll be 64 years old.

Will anyone still need you or feed you? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

A good question that none of us knows the answer to until we get there. When Paul McCartney came home at quarter-to-three in late June 2006 (yes, at age 64), I think Heather locked the door. Bummer.

[Lar]

For the record, the correct spelling is lead, not lede.

The OED agrees with you, but Merriam-Webster accepts "lede". From this I infer that it depends on which side of the American border you find yourself. But perhaps that was your point all along, and I was just too dense to catch that.

I'm fine with either. I used "lede" because everyone else seemed to and I couldn't be bothered to go look it up. (besides, what if someone changed Wiktionary to match their views??? OH NOES!). Thanks for the input though. I think I'll probably switch back. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Friday]

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.

Lar's description sounded pretty accurate to me, too. If this description is not accurate and you're actually _trying_ to work together productively with others, you're astoundingly bad at it.

[Bottled_Spider]

*Percy Bysshe Shelley, 19th century poet who knew a lot of classical Latin and Greek stuff, whereas his audience didn't. So he swallowed his pride.

And, in July 1822, a lot of seawater.

When Paul McCartney came home at quarter-to-three in late June 2006, I think Heather locked the door. Bummer.

Indeed. And the answer to the question "Who could ask for more?" is Heather's lawyers.

[Somey]

Lar's description sounded pretty accurate to me, too. If this description is not accurate and you're actually _trying_ to work together productively with others, you're astoundingly bad at it.

It was probably accurate except for the use of the word "encyclopedia." There's no real-world rule that states that the writer of an "encyclopedia" article has to be able to defend his or her work directly among the anonymous masses. Traditionally, the publisher has always been responsible for the content, and has acted as a buffer between authors and readers - and of course, has also acted as a provider of peer-review mechanisms to ensure accuracy and reliability.

It may be that Mr. Damian is opposed to the entire crowd-sourcing concept, would like to see Wikipedia move away from it, and gravitates towards (and/or actually starts) conflicts that tend to demonstrate how crowd-sourcing is a problem... but that doesn't mean he isn't interested in "writing an encyclopedia."

[Milton Roe]

*Percy Bysshe Shelley, 19th century poet who knew a lot of classical Latin and Greek stuff, whereas his audience didn't. So he swallowed his pride.

And, in July 1822, a lot of seawater.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) Yep. Probably pulled down by the waterlogged ghost of wife #1. So romantic. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif)

[Peter Damian]

It may be that Mr. Damian is opposed to the entire crowd-sourcing concept, would like to see Wikipedia move away from it, and gravitates towards (and/or actually starts) conflicts that tend to demonstrate how crowd-sourcing is a problem... but that doesn't mean he isn't interested in "writing an encyclopedia."

I think the basic idea of Wikipedia works very well. Also, I work with people pretty well - no one could have written the quantity of articles that I have without having a clue about how to get on in Wiki-world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_Da...mian_Background

What I find disagreeable about Wikipedia is the cult philosophy that dictates you must be kind and welcoming to every 'editor' that darkens the door of an article. There's a kind of theory that there is some potential greatness in every new arrival, and that if you embrace them with Wikilove they will add something wonderful.

The fact is that certain people are constitutionally incapable of writing. They don't understand how to source material, they don't understand that some facts belong in an article, others don't, they don't understand that those which do belong have each their natural place in the article. This inability to write curiously goes with an inability to think clearly and argue logically and all those good things, and they end up wasting the precious time that I have to sort out an article.

Other editors are very good, and those I welcome and cultivate. Usually without success. Here's a reply from one of the editors I was working on because he seemed promising.

Thanks for your message. I support your efforts, but won't spend any more time on Ayn Rand myself. I think it's a waste of time, and highlights perfectly the main flaw of Wikipedia - that unlike with proper encyclopedias, experts and idiots have equal say, and fanatics (no matter how amateur or idiotic) can always get their way if they stay up late enough and make enough edits and reversions. (Not that I am an expert in this particular case.) Larry Sanger's phrase that Wikipedia is 'committed to amateurism' sums it up perfectly. Ben Finn (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It turns out he has a PhD in philosophy, and is a professional copyeditor.

But of course Wikipedia says we must welcome and embrace the trolls, who of course are not put off by any of this at all. And Wikipedia says that if we are incivil to the trolls, good editors will be put off. Which do you believe, Friday?

[Sxeptomaniac]

Lar's description sounded pretty accurate to me, too. If this description is not accurate and you're actually _trying_ to work together productively with others, you're astoundingly bad at it.

It was probably accurate except for the use of the word "encyclopedia." There's no real-world rule that states that the writer of an "encyclopedia" article has to be able to defend his or her work directly among the anonymous masses. Traditionally, the publisher has always been responsible for the content, and has acted as a buffer between authors and readers - and of course, has also acted as a provider of peer-review mechanisms to ensure accuracy and reliability.

It may be that Mr. Damian is opposed to the entire crowd-sourcing concept, would like to see Wikipedia move away from it, and gravitates towards (and/or actually starts) conflicts that tend to demonstrate how crowd-sourcing is a problem... but that doesn't mean he isn't interested in "writing an encyclopedia."

Whether or not you consider it an encyclopedia, some people seem to hinge an awful lot of their egos on editing there (not all of whom are necessarily banned from from WP like those previously mentioned). In checking a talk page, I just ran across a comment by Moulton that he drove 20 miles in order to post to Wikiversity. That's just disturbing.

[Peter Damian]

A minor stir in the blogosphere following my email to Vallicella re the Ayn Rand article. Triablogue posts here

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/01/a-r...hilosopher.html

I also post here
http://ocham.blogspot.com/2009/01/i-was-go...vious-post.html

and Bill continues in the same vein here

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/mav...andpeikoff.html

Warning - the last one is somewhat technical, but begins with the excellent

Comments are on. If you have something intelligent and civil to contribute, please do. But I have zero tolerance for cyberpunks. If you fail to address what I actually say, or thoughtlessly spout the Rand party line, or show the least bit of disrespect to me or my commenters, then I will delete your comment.

This should be a Wikipedia policy. Not just civil, but 'intelligent and civil'. Address what the other person has to say, and do not thoughtlessly spout the party line of whatever fringe view happens to be on the menu today.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[dtobias]

From one of the blog postings referenced in one of those you linked to, a great review pullquote: "Wikipedia... not nearly as bad as you might have expected." They should put that in one of the foundation donation ads! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Moulton]

For those who give a fuck about such idiotic philosophical debates, the coma-inducing colloquy on Ayn Rand and Wikipedia continues on Ocham's blogsite, Beyond Necessity.

[EricBarbour]

I've got an even more concise way of dealing with Rand: a comic strip.

Nowhere Band

[Peter Damian]

For those who give a fuck about such idiotic philosophical debates, the coma-inducing colloquy on Ayn Rand and Wikipedia continues on Ocham's blogsite, Beyond Necessity.

Well you seem to be giving a f---, because half the comments are by you. There has never been such activity on my blog.

There is a comment about it on Peter Smith's blog (he is Logic professor at Cambridge, and ex-editor of premier journal Analysis).

I can remember some great battles with Randroids in the distant past (= 80s). Weemba (one of the grad student Brahms Gang at Berkeley) had the nice tactic of putting a dollar sign in front of words that Objectivists gave their own, nonstandard meaning. "$Possible", for example.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=23...036231586849588

[dtobias]

I can remember some great battles with Randroids in the distant past (= 80s). Weemba (one of the grad student Brahms Gang at Berkeley) had the nice tactic of putting a dollar sign in front of words that Objectivists gave their own, nonstandard meaning. "$Possible", for example.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=23...036231586849588

Perl programmers do that too... variables in that language start with a dollar sign.