Jimbo Wales vs. Oliver Kamm, ...get your popcorn Options Rating

[thekohser]

Step 1:
Read this guest column in the Times of London:

Step 2:
Read Jimbo's response on the WikiEN mailing list:
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:23:55 -0400
From: Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Times article (London)
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org>

> "The notion that a false claim to knowledge is wrong is not part of
> Wikipedia's culture."

This is preposterous.

> "It combines the free-market dogmatism of the libertarian Right with
> the anti-intellectualism of the populist Left. "

Nonsense.

It is hard to know how to coherently respond to ignorant ranting which
appears to make no attempt to even connect at any point with the facts
of reality.

--Jimbo

Step 3:
Sit back and watch how Oliver Kamm (a noted radical intellectual and financial expert who has sparred with Noam Chomsky) tears open Jimmy Wales in the next few weeks. Pop some popcorn!

[Somey]

>"The notion that a false claim to knowledge is wrong is not part of
> Wikipedia's culture."

This is preposterous.

Looking at this realistically, I think we could probably be somewhat charitable WRT Jimbo's claim of "preposterousness." The core of Wikipedia's user community does accept that a false claim to knowledge is wrong. What they absolutely don't accept, much to Jimbo's own recent chagrin, is the notion that they should have to prove that their claims to knowledge are true.

> "It combines the free-market dogmatism of the libertarian Right with
> the anti-intellectualism of the populist Left. "

Nonsense.

Maybe Jimbo didn't understand the quote? (Clearly, Dave Gerard didn't even try...)

By "free-market dogmatism of the libertarian Right," Kamm is presumably referring to the notion that "market forces" are the most effective way of ensuring that people get what they want. Many people believe this is simply wrong, and that government regulation is necessary to limit corruption, fraud, and so on. Wikipedia, which is almost totally unregulated and ruled by market forces, plays into this mode of thinking quite directly, I should think.

By "anti-intellectualism of the populist Left," Kamm is probably stretching things a bit - this sort of talk usually comes from right-wing types who are overly eager to equate communism with fascism, and who refer to "left-wing dictatorships" such as Stalin's and Mao Zedong's (both anti-intellectuals) as examples of the "populist left." While this really doesn't apply much to the politics of Western democracies, in terms of Wikipedia I'd say he has a valid point. Putting aside the issue of Wikipedia's power structure and its similarity to various totalitarian regimes (an idea I've never personally bought into), there are all sorts of examples on Wikipedia of popular movements being promoted at the expense of corporations, governments, and of course, intelligence agencies. (Not to mention other websites...) That's not necessarily bad, but then again, truth is relative even if facts are not. POV pushing is a huge problem on Wikipedia regardless of which political direction or ideology it occurs in the name of.

Kamm shouldn't be blamed for, in effect, trying to state his objections as plainly as he can. WP is more complex than that, but he's writing a news-site column, not a book.

Meanwhile, the foregoing is probably more appropriate for the blog, isn't it? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

[thekohser]

>"The notion that a false claim to knowledge is wrong is not part of
> Wikipedia's culture."

This is preposterous.

Looking at this realistically, I think we could probably be somewhat charitable WRT Jimbo's claim of "preposterousness." The core of Wikipedia's user community does accept that a false claim to knowledge is wrong. What they absolutely don't accept, much to Jimbo's own recent chagrin, is the notion that they should have to prove that their claims to knowledge are true.

What everyone seems to be missing (both here and on WikiEN-l) is that Kamm's message in context was:

When a prominent Wikipedian who claimed to be a tenured professor of divinity was revealed instead to be a young college dropout, the site’s founder Jimmy Wales responded that he was unconcerned. The notion that a false claim to knowledge is wrong is not part of Wikipedia’s culture.

The line that everyone is focusing on is (in my opinion) not so much about "false claim to knowledge" in article content space, but rather on pseudonymous User pages. Of course, this jabs directly at Jimbo's judgment (or utter lack thereof) during the Essjay fiasco, which would be embarrassing, which is why Jimbo, Gerard & Co. have slightly, subtly tweaked the discussion so that Kamm appears more off-base than he actually was -- which was exactly on target vis-a-vis Ryan Jordan's false claim to knowledge.

Greg

[Jonny Cache]

"The notion that a false claim to knowledge is wrong is not part of Wikipedia's culture."

This is preposterous.

Source. Wikien-l/2007-August/079209.html

Looking at this realistically, I think we could probably be somewhat charitable WRT Jimbo's claim of "preposterousness". The core of Wikipedia's user community does accept that a false claim to knowledge is wrong. What they absolutely don't accept, much to Jimbo's own recent chagrin, is the notion that they should have to prove that their claims to knowledge are true.

What everyone seems to be missing (both here and on WikiEN-l) is that Kamm's message in context was:

When a prominent Wikipedian who claimed to be a tenured professor of divinity was revealed instead to be a young college dropout, the site’s founder Jimmy Wales responded that he was unconcerned. The notion that a false claim to knowledge is wrong is not part of Wikipedia’s culture.

The line that everyone is focusing on is (in my opinion) not so much about "false claim to knowledge" in article content space, but rather on pseudonymous User pages. Of course, this jabs directly at Jimbo's judgment (or utter lack thereof) during the Essjay fiasco, which would be embarrassing, which is why Jimbo, Gerard & Co. have slightly, subtly tweaked the discussion so that Kamm appears more off-base than he actually was — which was exactly on target vis-a-vis Ryan Jordan's false claim to knowledge.

Greg

Finally, Σ1 who can read > 1 line @ a time !!!

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: