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

[Peter Damian]

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

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

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

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

[dtobias]

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

[Peter Damian]

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

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

[Jonny Cache]

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

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

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

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

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

[wikiwhistle]

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

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

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

1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.

2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. The group/leader is always right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle:

[jorge]

Chilling

[Peter Damian]

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

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

[Somey]

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

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

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

For example:

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

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

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

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

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

[Jonny Cache]

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

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

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

For example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[dtobias]

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

[Somey]

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

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

[Jonny Cache]

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Milton Roe]

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

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

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

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

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

1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.

2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. The group/leader is always right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.

2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. The group/leader is always right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Castle Rock]

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

[wikiwhistle]

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

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

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

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle:

[Jonny Cache]

Could I Have A Single Malt Scotch Instead?

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

[Milton Roe]

Could I Have A Single Malt Scotch Instead?

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

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

[Ed Poor]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Uncle Ed"

[Derktar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Uncle Ed"

The legendary Ed Poor! Welcome to WR.

[Somey]

The legendary Ed Poor! Welcome to WR.

Indeed! Has anybody heard the weather report from Hell today? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smiling.gif)

[Jon Awbrey]

The legendary Ed Poor! Welcome to WR.

Indeed! Has anybody heard the weather report from Hell today? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Live On Line

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

[Peter Damian]

Geogre has a nice analysis of this here:

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

Studies have shown what any long-time editor at Wikipedia knows: most articles have a single author. They have multiple editors -- multiple redactors -- but most have a single voice building from scratch. It takes only a moderate commitment to edit, but it takes a serious commitment to write. Writers tend to get passionate about what they're doing, for good or bad. When it's bad, we get the ethnic/political/religious wars. When it's good, we get people who go from articles to AfD to AN to RFA to AN/I, etc. The more people write, the better they get at it. If, though, there is a choke point, if there is an hierarchy, if there is an overuser, then writers will flee. In the loss of original old timers and the passionate authors, you are seeing a new paradigm. Existing articles won't vanish (unless some citation freak or fair use monster gets at them, or some drive-by assessment drive ends up labeling all our FA's "start class"), but you will move from the set up where someone like me is possible, here -- where someone can come at first to fill a gap and then begin joyfully adding all sorts of things -- to one where you get a revolving door of people who get in, do a little, and then go. It will be robbing the project of expertise and there ever being content expertise again. They'll stick around long enough to do a little, to realize who their masters are, and then they'll bail out. It's a zombie like population of mediocrity that's in the future. That's the death of Wikipedia and the co-opting of it by another 4chan, another Slashdot.

This is the heresy I was talking about - that the crowd has no wisdom.

Welcome, Ed.

[Maju]

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

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

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

1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.

2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. The group/leader is always right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very scary but real too. Maybe a couple of points can be scrapped off but certainly the clique (not the whole Wikipedia - which it's actually its editors, not so much its managers) acts that way.

[jch]

Very scary but real too. Maybe a couple of points can be scrapped off but certainly the clique (not the whole Wikipedia - which it's actually its editors, not so much its managers) acts that way.

Managers = admins, WMF staff, both, or some other set?

[Maju]

Very scary but real too. Maybe a couple of points can be scrapped off but certainly the clique (not the whole Wikipedia - which it's actually its editors, not so much its managers) acts that way.

Managers = admins, WMF staff, both, or some other set?

Both.

I meant to say that who make Wikipedia are basically the editors. The clique are mostly managers instead.

[Docknell]

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

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

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

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

There are many types of cults

Harmful cult is something I would apply in the context of WP. Its harmful in terms of misinformation, and harmful what it does to people.

Cults such as scientology are harmful psychologically (probably) and they are harmful because they abuse people by taking their resource (time or money) and giving them something back that is harmful (psychological harm).

WP is harmful because it recruits people by pushing the "free" label but ignoring the time sink/stress/sociopath alert issue, gets them to contribute a lot of their resources, and indoctrinates them into doing things they would not normally do whilst propagating the bullshit or harmful POVs of any admin who wants to do so.

Bullying is one such activity. Another is creating enemies. The sockpuppet enemy is something that they generally do. The signs are up all over WP.

WR is another enemy.

These are all entities for the purpose of effigy burning.

Sockpuppet lists are there to keep other editors in line (they are built by admins to make sure specific POV interests are protected).

Cults such as scientology have a specific lingo. WP is the same in this regard. They have obscurantisms that are used to force people or coerce them into falling in line.

And when you end up with a suppressive person

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressive_Person

who rebels enough, they end up ejected from the cult and their effigy is usually burnt in full view.

So you end up with an organization with a famous evangelist (Cruize or Wales), that has a large following and seemingly reputable setup, but which makes its believers ignore reality, and burn anyone else who doesn't comply. The burning can extend to the presentation of IPs and the gross misrepresentation of statements.

WP is more efficient and effective as pushing harmful POV worldwide though.

Doc

[Mr. Mystery]

i wandered into my local public library today, and came across a curious tome entitled "The Ayn Rand Cult," by Jeff Walker. Knowing Jimbo Wales, your friend and mine, claims to subscribe to "Objectivism," i decided to pick it up. While Walker generally seems overly polemic than is necessary, there is a section, entitled "An Ignorant Oracle?," where he discusses how Rand instituted a practice of not reading "books and articles she knew to be evil" (generally anything critical of her) but also that she pontificated as an authority on philosophical and cultural subjects she hadn't read or had limited knowledge of. As he states:

On what did Rand base her repeated denunciations of western culture? In the last 30 years of her life, Rand read a slew of mystery novels, but little of a rigorous theoretical nature. She followed the culture, recalls Nathaniel Branden, chiefly through The New York Times, television, some movies, and a few plays. Branden claims that reading the newspaper as thoroughly as Rand did and watching as much TV as she did enabled her to draw some fairly meaningful and legitimate conclusions about the culture. p244

Now, I know that sounds like the analytical approach of your average Wikipedian in general, (indeed, that seems to be the operating assumption of Wikipedia itself) but in particular, Walker's depiction of Rand reminds me of everyone's favorite Wikipedian, SV. After reading this, Jimbo's indulgence of SV makes more sense, in that his "Objectivism" would have inoculated in him an abiding respect for completely insane but dogmatic women of conviction, especially if they happen to be attractive right-wing nutjobs.

anyone not familiar with the practice of checking the sources that Wikipedia articles link to could assume that Wikipedia's content represented a consensus in reality, like anyone not familiar with philosophy, upon reading Rand, might assume that "Objectivism" represented a legitimate take on philosophy. but it hadn't struck me before now the extent to which Objectivism could explain Wikipedia. Basically, everything wrong with Objectivism is a Wikipedian operating principle.

[Jon Awbrey]

I wandered into my local public library today, and came across a curious tome entitled "The Ayn Rand Cult", by Jeff Walker. Knowing Jimbo Wales, your friend and mine, claims to subscribe to "Objectivism", I decided to pick it up. While Walker generally seems overly polemic than is necessary, there is a section, entitled "An Ignorant Oracle?", where he discusses how Rand instituted a practice of not reading "books and articles she knew to be evil" (generally anything critical of her) but also that she pontificated as an authority on philosophical and cultural subjects she hadn't read or had limited knowledge of. As he states:

On what did Rand base her repeated denunciations of western culture? In the last 30 years of her life, Rand read a slew of mystery novels, but little of a rigorous theoretical nature. She followed the culture, recalls Nathaniel Branden, chiefly through The New York Times, television, some movies, and a few plays. Branden claims that reading the newspaper as thoroughly as Rand did and watching as much TV as she did enabled her to draw some fairly meaningful and legitimate conclusions about the culture. (p. 244)

Now, I know that sounds like the analytical approach of your average Wikipedian in general, (indeed, that seems to be the operating assumption of Wikipedia itself) but in particular, Walker's depiction of Rand reminds me of everyone's favorite Wikipedian, SV. After reading this, Jimbo's indulgence of SV makes more sense, in that his "Objectivism" would have inoculated in him an abiding respect for completely insane but dogmatic women of conviction, especially if they happen to be attractive right-wing nutjobs.

Anyone not familiar with the practice of checking the sources that Wikipedia articles link to could assume that Wikipedia's content represented a consensus in reality, like anyone not familiar with philosophy, upon reading Rand, might assume that "Objectivism" represented a legitimate take on philosophy. but it hadn't struck me before now the extent to which Objectivism could explain Wikipedia. Basically, everything wrong with Objectivism is a Wikipedian operating principle.

I'm no particular fan of Ayn Rand, but it would defame even her to say that Jimmy Wales is her disciple.

There is not even the shallowest attempt at a coherent philosophy to be found in the Church Of Wikipediology (COW).

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

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:

[dtobias]

When excommunicated Objectivist Nathaniel Branden and his former wife Barbara Branden each brought out "tell-all" books exposing the inner secrets of the Rand cult, the reaction of Objectivist officialdom (run by Leonard Peikoff after Rand's death) was to demand that their true believers not read those evil books... that's the Objectivist version of the BADSITES policy.

This post has been edited by dtobias:

[Cla68]

When excommunicated Objectivist Nathaniel Branden and his former wife Barbara Branden each brought out "tell-all" books exposing the inner secrets of the Rand cult, the reaction of Objectivist officialdom (run by Leonard Peikoff after Rand's death) was to demand that their true believers not read those evil books... that's the Objectivist version of the BADSITES policy.

That may be a good test of the validity of any movement or organization in how comfortable they are with outside criticism. For example, democracies are usually much more tolerant of criticism than totalitarian regimes, like China or North Korea.

[Mr. Mystery]

I'm no particular fan of Ayn Rand, but it would defame even her to say that Jimmy Wales is her disciple.

There is not even the shallowest attempt at a coherent philosophy to be found in the Church Of Wikipediology (COW).

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

aw, give him his due. he might not make it as an encyclopedianist or even a rationalist, but Jimbo could be the next L. Ron Hubbard!

[Docknell]

I'm no particular fan of Ayn Rand, but it would defame even her to say that Jimmy Wales is her disciple.

There is not even the shallowest attempt at a coherent philosophy to be found in the Church Of Wikipediology (COW).

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

aw, give him his due. he might not make it as an encyclopedianist or even a rationalist, but Jimbo could be the next L. Ron Hubbard!

Mmm, register WP as a religion for the tax breaks? Now there's an idea!

Doc

[GlassBeadGame]

I am surprised that something very much like a religion, consciously asserting itself as such, has not arisen on Wikipedia. I don't mean a mere send up of a religion, but something more serious. This is an almost irresistible "social mod" on a MMORPG that is as large and flexible as Wikipedia has become. I think that some of what Moulton attempts smacks of this type of thing. Giano worship also points in this direction but only in an rudimentary manner. He needs a more dramatic "departure and return" drama than petty transitory blocks and bans before he can hope to rapture his children up into the clouds of the internet.

[Jon Awbrey]

I am surprised that something very much like a religion, consciously asserting itself as such, has not arisen on Wikipedia. I don't mean a mere send up of a religion, but something more serious. This is an almost irresistible "social mod" on a MMORPG that is as large and flexible as Wikipedia has become. I think that some of what Moulton attempts smacks of this type of thing. Giano worship also points in this direction but only in an rudimentary manner. He needs a more dramatic "departure and return" drama than petty transitory blocks and bans before he can hope to rapture his children up into the clouds of the internet.

What part of Assume Good Faith did you not Accord Genu-Flection?

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

[GlassBeadGame]

I am surprised that something very much like a religion, consciously asserting itself as such, has not arisen on Wikipedia. I don't mean a mere send up of a religion, but something more serious. This is an almost irresistible "social mod" on a MMORPG that is as large and flexible as Wikipedia has become. I think that some of what Moulton attempts smacks of this type of thing. Giano worship also points in this direction but only in an rudimentary manner. He needs a more dramatic "departure and return" drama than petty transitory blocks and bans before he can hope to rapture his children up into the clouds of the internet.

What part of Assume Good Faith did you not Accord Genu-Flection?

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

The old religion of "God-King" never had much magic and that has altogether played out at this point. I mean some kind of new religion that develops on wiki in opposition to The Cult of the God-King. Probably will have some progressive and reform aspects, but would amount to a deepening of the role playing game nature of the site.

[Jon Awbrey]

I am surprised that something very much like a religion, consciously asserting itself as such, has not arisen on Wikipedia. I don't mean a mere send up of a religion, but something more serious. This is an almost irresistible "social mod" on a MMORPG that is as large and flexible as Wikipedia has become. I think that some of what Moulton attempts smacks of this type of thing. Giano worship also points in this direction but only in an rudimentary manner. He needs a more dramatic "departure and return" drama than petty transitory blocks and bans before he can hope to rapture his children up into the clouds of the internet.

What part of Assume Good Faith did you not Accord Genu-Flection?

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

The old religion of "God-King" never had much magic and that has altogether played out at this point. I mean some kind of new religion that develops on wiki in opposition to The Cult of the God-King. Probably will have some progressive and reform aspects, but would amount to a deepening of the role playing game nature of the site.

The phenomenon of scientism is one of those topics that falls within the study of inquiry, so it is something that I had been examining long before I ever encountered its manifestations among certain cabals of Wikipediots.

Now, the very few articles on politics or religion or their surrounding arenas of discussion that I ever visited in Wikiputia were enough to tell me that no good could ever come of the unsound wiki-φury I found there, so I never ran into what some folks call the ID Cabal in all its full array and greater glory, but I do know the type from elsewhere in Wikipedia and from long acquaintance elsewhere in the real world.

There are people who know what scientific inquiry really demands of one who would live a life of inquiry, and there are people who worship the Flash-Frozen Idols Of Science for the same reason that these same people would have worshipped this or that ecclesiastical power in former times, to wit, or not, simply because it's the Biggest Bully On The Block at the present time. These fairweather friends of shiny science will desert science-in-the-rough just as soon as the going gets tough.

In case you hadn't noticed, the going is beginning to get tough …

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

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:

[Jon Awbrey]

All cults have a single belief which is completely mad.

Everything they believe is quite logical and rational, except for the single mad belief.

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

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

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

I am skeptical of the idea that "all the evil things that a cult does can be explained by their belief in this single mad thing", and I certainly don't think that "everything they believe is quite logical and rational, except for the single mad belief".

But the strategy known as Unifying The Manifold Of Senseless Irrationalities (UTMOSI) under a Sole, Unique, Mad Belief (SUMB) is still worth trying, even if only for the mental exercise, and even if the attempt does not succeed completely.

PD's candidate for the SUMB is the belief that "good articles arise from the efforts of hundreds or thousands of individual nameless editors".

Let us examine that suggestion, and let us see if we can think of other mad beliefs that share in e-mitting the observed spectrum of Wiki-Induced Knowledge Impairments (WIKI's).

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

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:

[Moulton]

There is indeed a Single Mad Belief, but it's hardly unique to Wikipedia.

I have another name for it.

I call it Humankind's Original Logic Error (HOLE), because it dates all the way back to the Dawn of Civilization.

This is a particularly stubborn misconception to flush down the toilet, as it's an error in mathematical reasoning.

I estimate that 95% of Homo Schleppians still have a HOLE in their head.