FT2 back in the ArbCom race, with lots to say about the happenings of 2008 Options

[Alison]

Heyyaz,

Looks like FT2 has put his name forward again. And he's got quite a lot of interesting things to say, including more on PoetHorde, certain alternate accounts and more on stuff that happened behind the scenes back in 2008.

Edit: And including about those 'oversighted edits' and the OrangeMarlin affair.

[Kelly Martin]

Wikipedians seem to have a tendency to take after their leader, Jimbo, which means that they will willingly spin lies of any sort in order to create a suitable fiction to explain away any evidence that doesn't comport with the reality they want to be true. Many of them also have the uncanny ability to believe those lies, once spun.

The only takeaway one can get from all this is that Wikipedians cannot be trusted to be truthful, not to themselves and not to anyone else, nor can they be trusted to keep their promises. There is no way to deal in good faith with such people; one must, at all times, assume that any offer made will be retracted, any deal struck ignored, and any promise reneged, for it will happen. These people have no honor, and honorable people have nothing to gain by consorting with their like.

[Doc glasgow]

Wikipedians seem to have a tendency to take after their leader, Jimbo, which means that they will willingly spin lies of any sort in order to create a suitable fiction to explain away any evidence that doesn't comport with the reality they want to be true. Many of them also have the uncanny ability to believe those lies, once spun.

The only takeaway one can get from all this is that Wikipedians cannot be trusted to be truthful, not to themselves and not to anyone else, nor can they be trusted to keep their promises. There is no way to deal in good faith with such people; one must, at all times, assume that any offer made will be retracted, any deal struck ignored, and any promise reneged, for it will happen. These people have no honor, and honorable people have nothing to gain by consorting with their like.

Kelly, even when you say something I disagree with, I have enough respect for your insight that I usually expect learn something from it.

This however is an exception. When did you become an uncritical spouter of the house paranoia?

The only thing one can say about "Wikipedians" is that they are a mixed bunch that defies most generalisations. (Other then they've got no life and too much time on their hands - but that goes for the regulars of WR too.)

This "guilt by association" is just the flipside of the same nonsense Sidaway tried on me when he told me to stop posting to the "troll site" because all the people there are hateful and those who associate with them must also be evil.

Wikipedia has a whole mixture of ideologies. It give just some examples of the problematic ones:
#There are some Jimbo devotees (but there number is relatively small, and mainly restricted to a few old-timers, as Jimbo's presence has declined).
#There are free-speech, "my right to publish", fanatics
#There are undogmatic power-trippers
#There are single-issue advocates

A more nuanced analysis is surely a better one.

[Kelly Martin]

The only thing one can say about "Wikipedians" is that they are a mixed bunch that defies most generalisations. (Other then they've got no life and too much time on their hands - but that goes for the regulars of WR too.)

You're just trying to rationalize your continued involvement with a fundamentally unethical organization. The characteristics I recited are definitive of Jimmy Wales; there can be no question of that. One thing I've observed is that organizations quite often take after their founder, and Wikipedia appears to be no exception in this regard. Just as Jimmy Wales places little value in the honorable treatment of others, so many Wikipedians have copied him in this regard. Jimmy has cashed so many overdrawn checks against Wikipedia's morality that he has driven it, too, into bankruptcy.

The fact that there are still a few Wikipedians left who have not surrendered to the groupthink does not mean that the groupthink does not exist or that there is not a lack of moral fibre in the entity. The simple fact is that Wikipedia lacks, from the top down, any steadfast commitment to ethical practices, and people need to keep that in mind at all times when interacting with Wikipedia and with individual Wikipedians. If you do not wish to be tarred by that brush, then step out of its way.

Of course, this isn't entirely just copying Jimmy's lack of moral fibre; it's also an entirely to-be-expected consequence of handing out anonymous power. Anonymity breeds contempt, as many have noted; it should come to no surprise to anyone that an environment in which most actors are effectively anonymous would quickly be overrun by unethical actors acting with gross contempt for ordinary social standards. It's hard enough maintaining those social standards in nonanonymous communities. Of course, I hold Jimmy to task for the decision to encourage anonymity as well, even if his main motivation for that was simply to maximize participation.

[Doc glasgow]

The only thing one can say about "Wikipedians" is that they are a mixed bunch that defies most generalisations. (Other then they've got no life and too much time on their hands - but that goes for the regulars of WR too.)

You're just trying to rationalize your continued involvement with a fundamentally unethical organization. The characteristics I recited are definitive of Jimmy Wales; there can be no question of that. One thing I've observed is that organizations quite often take after their founder, and Wikipedia appears to be no exception in this regard. Just as Jimmy Wales places little value in the honorable treatment of others, so many Wikipedians have copied him in this regard. Jimmy has cashed so many overdrawn checks against Wikipedia's morality that he has driven it, too, into bankruptcy.

The fact that there are still a few Wikipedians left who have not surrendered to the groupthink does not mean that the groupthink does not exist or that there is not a lack of moral fibre in the entity. The simple fact is that Wikipedia lacks, from the top down, any steadfast commitment to ethical practices, and people need to keep that in mind at all times when interacting with Wikipedia and with individual Wikipedians. If you do not wish to be tarred by that brush, then step out of its way.

Of course, this isn't entirely just copying Jimmy's lack of moral fibre; it's also an entirely to-be-expected consequence of handing out anonymous power. Anonymity breeds contempt, as many have noted; it should come to no surprise to anyone that an environment in which most actors are effectively anonymous would quickly be overrun by unethical actors acting with gross contempt for ordinary social standards. It's hard enough maintaining those social standards in nonanonymous communities. Of course, I hold Jimmy to task for the decision to encourage anonymity as well, even if his main motivation for that was simply to maximize participation.

You know me well enough to know I've no interest in defending Wales. And yes, anonymity is a problem with BLP editing, which I've long observed. Structurally, anonymous editing of BLPs gives more scope for those who seek to libel or defame.

However, just because people edit anonymously doesn't necessarily mean they edit irresponsibly. So, the accusation it morally warps people is invalid. It just allows irresponsible people to hide among responsible people (who want to be anonymous for perfectly understandable reasons).

Your argument is also logically invalid. " that there are still a few Wikipedians left who have not surrendered to the groupthink does not mean that the groupthink does not exist " I am not arguing that groupthink doesn't exist, however I don't draw the conclusion that those resisting it are "few". Indeed, I think most Wikipedians espousing extreme libertarian free-speech views probably didn't develop them on wikipedia, but we attracted to Wikipedia because of them. I'd say many participants in Wikipedia have not in fact developed the capacity to think at all, never mind "group think" - they just do their thing because they want to.



This post has been edited by Doc glasgow: Sun 5th December 2010, 10:27pm