Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911
You know what? I see that Jimbo has been repeatedly stating that it doesn't matter that Wikia.com hosted these "private, invitation-only" mailing lists comprised of influential Wikipedians.
Is it possible that he learned ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from the Essjay scandal? I quote a key passage here:
QUOTE
When Essjay was hired by Wikia in January 2007, he made changes to his Wikia profile and "came clean on who he really was," identifying himself as Ryan Jordan.[20][21][22][23][24] Other Wikipedia editors questioned Essjay on his Wikipedia talk page about the apparent discrepancy between his new Wikia profile and his previously claimed credentials.[3][25] Essjay posted a detailed explanation in response to the first inquiry, stating that:
“ There are a number of trolls, stalkers, and psychopaths who wander around Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects looking for people to harass, stalk, and otherwise ruin the lives of (several have been arrested over their activities here)...You will eventually say something that will lead back to you, and the stalkers will find it...I decided to be myself, to never hide my personality, to always be who I am, but to utilize disinformation with regard to what I consider unimportant details: age, location, occupation, etc..." [3] ”
He later commented on his Wikipedia user page about having fooled Schiff by "doing a good job playing the part."[14]
Essjay : Wikia : "I did it to evade the trolls and stalkers" :: Durova : Wikia-hosted Wpinvestigations-l : "We did it to evade the trolls and stalkers"
Seriously, nothing was learned. Correct?
Jimmy Wales has to be either the stupidest man or the worst pathological liar on the planet. I'm going with pathological liar. It's as if he can't HELP himself.
Jimmy Wales has to be either the stupidest man or the worst pathological liar on the planet. I'm going with pathological liar. It's as if he can't HELP himself.
Greg
Maybe they should found a Pathological Liars Club with Annual Picnics-Luaus, DeTestimonial Roasts, and Public Exhibitions of the Liar's Art —
Jimmy Wales has to be either the stupidest man or the worst pathological liar on the planet. I'm going with pathological liar. It's as if he can't HELP himself.
I don't believe either of your disjunctive alternatives, Greg.
To my mind, it's more likely that Jimbo (like most people) harbors some inaccurate beliefs. Kelly Martin suggested he was in denial (presumably meaning that he was failing to examine the evidence for and against his beliefs in a sufficiently diligent, conscientious, or scientific manner).
That's my theory, Greg. I may be deluding myself in believing it, but until some better evidence comes along, it seems to be the most appropriate model to characterize Jimbo's beliefs and practices.
Jimmy Wales has to be either the stupidest man or the worst pathological liar on the planet. I'm going with pathological liar. It's as if he can't HELP himself.
I don't believe either of your disjunctive alternatives, Greg.
To my mind, it's more likely that Jimbo (like most people) harbors some inaccurate beliefs. Kelly Martin suggested he was in denial (presumably meaning that he was failing to examine the evidence for and against his beliefs in a sufficiently diligent, conscientious, or scientific manner).
That's my theory, Greg. I may be deluding myself in believing it, but until some better evidence comes along, it seems to be the most appropriate model to characterize Jimbo's beliefs and practices.
Okay, we have one vote for the Maxwell Razor Theory Of Jimbo Mechanics.
You may say that you're a dreamer, But I think you're the only one here.
Jimmy Wales has to be either the stupidest man or the worst pathological liar on the planet. I'm going with pathological liar. It's as if he can't HELP himself.
All three (and it is three, including the can't help self). Being stupid isn't the same thing as being unintelligent. Arrogance can shut off the clue-factor, in anyone. Esp. if they haven't a strong character to cope with flattering unction. Einstein had a great quote, Ill look up. Here it is:
QUOTE
‘The only way to escape the personal corruption of praise is to go on working. One is tempted to stop and listen to it. The only thing is to turn away and go on working. Work. There is nothing else.’
— Albert Einstein
Also, JImbo's response isn't going unnoticed, even by non-Wikipedians.
I worry that Jimbo Wales does not adequately grasp the key elements of PR communications crisis management though. His response to all this? An extremely glib "I advise the world to relax a notch or two".
Ouch.
This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 5th December 2007, 6:47pm
To my mind, it's more likely that Jimbo (like most people) harbors some inaccurate beliefs. Kelly Martin suggested he was in denial (presumably meaning that he was failing to examine the evidence for and against his beliefs in a sufficiently diligent, conscientious, or scientific manner).
Actually, denial is a psychological process that can serve to render aspects of intellectual capacity null and void. "Failing to examine scientifically" isn't the issue. "In denial" means it (something) is too painful or hard to look at, and is shut off from perception. Your suppositions presume human behavior and thought processes to be rational. This is where you are getting the large error margin. Emotions play a huge role in allowing the implementation of intelligence to take place. Ergo, despite intelligence, a person impacted by denial (or emotional upset, etc) can make highly stupid choices.
Denial is harder to see than emotional upset, because it's main tool is defence against unwanted information, and the person in denial is by definition unawares. Basically a person in denial would rather eradicate the messenger than admit the message. Everyone has a bit of denial, but it predominates for others. Jimbo probably had a weakness for denial, and he's allowed his fame to inflate himself far too much, to the extent that he's completely obnoxious around anyone he's not afraid of impressing - not to mention making unwise business choices.
You can't pull someone out of denial. It gets dealt with when it causes the person so many problems (from shoving things under the rug) that they have a huge life crisis,and have no choice to reevaluate (divorce, business failure, etc).
We've seen lots of textbook denial in the Durova case. From her defenders, but most significantly from Durova. It's sad and unsettling to watch. I'd feel sorry for her, if she weren't so destructive to others and unapologetic about it.
This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Wed 5th December 2007, 7:16pm
It's perplexing because I have so little understanding of the psychology of erratic leadership (notwithstanding the ubiquity of the phenomenon).
One thing I admire about Jimbo is that he's not afraid to fail.
Perhaps that's his primary method of learning.
It also explains why those who predict his failure (e.g. Larry Sanger) have abandoned Jimbo's ship to set a different course.
To Larry's credit, he is not laboring to cause the failure of Wikipedia.
One of the factors that makes con games so eternally pervasive in human bound-to-do-it-again-and-again-for-ages is a constant supply of marks, and one of the marks of a mark is a stubborn denial that some human beings really can be precisely the way that they obviously are.
Jon Awbrey
This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 5th December 2007, 8:38pm
It's perplexing because I have so little understanding of the psychology of erratic leadership (notwithstanding the ubiquity of the phenomenon).
It is textbook erratic leadership. Read "The Smartest Guys in the Room" about the Enron scandal. Denial, arrogance, and hubris can tear lives and companies and countries asunder. Old, old story.
It is perplexing because it is counter-intuitive that intelligent people would behave so.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 5th December 2007, 1:23pm)
One thing I admire about Jimbo is that he's not afraid to fail.
Sure he is. That's why one single word of dissention or criticism (even very useful criticism) is completely unwelcome. Someone truly fearless of failure would be more supple and flexible. And therefore less likely to fail.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 5th December 2007, 1:23pm)
Perhaps that's his primary method of learning.
Yes, but not how you are implying. If he doesn't like information, he rejects it and damns the person who spoke it as an evildoer. That's textbook denial.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 5th December 2007, 1:23pm)
It also explains why those who predict his failure (e.g. Larry Sanger) have abandoned Jimbo's ship to set a different course.
He had to leave. Jimbo doesn't like to hear what he doesn't like to hear. Larry wanted ads on Wikipedia and to create something substantive and sustainable. Jimbo thought this was dumb, didn't like being confronted, so Larry was out (principle: dont argue with your boss, even if you are right).
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 5th December 2007, 1:23pm)
To Larry's credit, he is not laboring to cause the failure of Wikipedia.
Larry is smart enough to know that insulting a former employer looks cheap. And he probably is clear that Wikipedia has a shelf life, with such unsustainable, unprofessional (and unethical) practices. I mean, "duh".
Most people wince at criticism, even when they know it's coming from an authoritative source. But he plows ahead even in the face of plausible criticism. He plows ahead until failure is a realized outcome, not just a prediction. That tells me he values direct experience over analytical reasoning or model-based reasoning.
Durova Resigns, The correct answer
Wed 5th December 2007, 3:06am
