Left vs Right Options

[Peter Damian]

Now for the most difficult part. The politics of Wikipedia, in which there are many paradoxes. Jimmy is an 'Objectivist', and many of the people who he assembled around him in the early days at Bomis were from the Objectivist mailing list.

An Objectivist (as I understand) is an extreme form of Right wing-ism. They are followers of Ayn Rand, who believed that history is determined by a small number of remarkable and intelligent individuals who by strength of personality and intelligence and good-lookingness make lots of money and become rich. They can only do this in America. No one in Europe has heard of Objectivism.

However, Wikipedia grew up rapidly after July 2001, when people like The Cuncator joined from Slashdot. Slashdot (as explained to me by Eric) is a website almost entirely populated by devotees of Linux and the 'open software movement'. This is a sort of ideology of crowdsourcing, which elevates the mob, and not the individual, to a position of supreme importance. It is a form of Leftism (although it is also a form of free-marketism, which is not really a form of Leftism at all). Furthermore, the general politics of Wikipedia is left-leaning.

How do we explain this paradox? Is it really a paradox?

[GlassBeadGame]

Now for the most difficult part. The politics of Wikipedia, in which there are many paradoxes. Jimmy is an 'Objectivist', and many of the people who he assembled around him in the early days at Bomis were from the Objectivist mailing list.

An Objectivist (as I understand) is an extreme form of Right wing-ism. They are followers of Ayn Rand, who believed that history is determined by a small number of remarkable and intelligent individuals who by strength of personality and intelligence and good-lookingness make lots of money and become rich. They can only do this in America. No one in Europe has heard of Objectivism.

However, Wikipedia grew up rapidly after July 2001, when people like The Cuncator joined from Slashdot. Slashdot (as explained to me by Eric) is a website almost entirely populated by devotees of Linux and the 'open software movement'. This is a sort of ideology of crowdsourcing, which elevates the mob, and not the individual, to a position of supreme importance. It is a form of Leftism (although it is also a form of free-marketism, which is not really a form of Leftism at all). Furthermore, the general politics of Wikipedia is left-leaning.

How do we explain this paradox? Is it really a paradox?

This is important but it is an area of discussion that I have found to the most difficult to make any headway with people on WR even prior to this site's domination by unredeemed Wikipedians. It is not an accident or mere irony that Mr. Wales is Randoid and gave birth to Wikipedia the great "Collaborative Encyclopedia." The prevalent rightism of the Wikipeian community is not just the fact that demographically speaking the internet is Ron Paul country. Wikipedia especially, and to some extent all of free culture and open source projects, are consistent with a Randoid worldview. Wiki "collaboration" is not collaboration at all. It contains no true cooperation and is in fact hostile to cooperation. It is a chain of discreet individual choices meant to simulate an Randian free market via the edit button. It is driven by the assumption some invisible hand will shape all of these contending individual actions into a higher truth. All true collaboration, which requires discussion, debate and democratically arrived synthesis that is finally implemented through planning is antithetical to the basic ideology that lies behind the project and which permeates the very code of the software. That Wikipedia has some elements of dispute resolution and discussion is a grudging and un-admitted concession to the reality that this free hand approach does not work.

This is why such disruption and hysteria arises whenever Wikipedia's community comes into contact with social forces outside the project in areas such as child protection, pornography and accommodating the need of outside communities such as was the case in the images of Mohammed matter. The Randoid rightism of narrow selfishness is unleashed in full force for all the world to see. It is always interesting to see Mr. Wales cringe at these times. Concessions to "community discussion" on the site, even under Randiod rule exposes the cracks in his flawed dystopia. At times like this he probably most longs for his original vision...himself a Godking who grants his subjects only the freedom of the edit button.

Sectarian American leftists of thirty years ago had a saying "Left in form Right in substance" which describes the situation on Wikipedia nicely. Wkipedians might consider themselves to represent a broad spectrum of political viewpoint, even if tilted toward the Paul and Randoid views. Most see themselves as some variant of "social liberal" and some even espouse leftism, usually of boutique brands of the "left libertarian" or "anarcho-syndicalist" mold. They tend to get upset when they are shown to be Randoid dupes. So good luck with that.

[Peter Damian]

Now for the most difficult part. The politics of Wikipedia, in which there are many paradoxes. Jimmy is an 'Objectivist', and many of the people who he assembled around him in the early days at Bomis were from the Objectivist mailing list.

An Objectivist (as I understand) is an extreme form of Right wing-ism. They are followers of Ayn Rand, who believed that history is determined by a small number of remarkable and intelligent individuals who by strength of personality and intelligence and good-lookingness make lots of money and become rich. They can only do this in America. No one in Europe has heard of Objectivism.

However, Wikipedia grew up rapidly after July 2001, when people like The Cuncator joined from Slashdot. Slashdot (as explained to me by Eric) is a website almost entirely populated by devotees of Linux and the 'open software movement'. This is a sort of ideology of crowdsourcing, which elevates the mob, and not the individual, to a position of supreme importance. It is a form of Leftism (although it is also a form of free-marketism, which is not really a form of Leftism at all). Furthermore, the general politics of Wikipedia is left-leaning.

How do we explain this paradox? Is it really a paradox?

This is important but it is an area of discussion that I have found to the most difficult to make any headway with people on WR even prior to this site's domination by unredeemed Wikipedians. It is not an accident or mere irony that Mr. Wales is Randoid and gave birth to Wikipedia the great "Collaborative Encyclopedia." The prevalent rightism of the Wikipeian community is not just the fact that demographically speaking the internet is Ron Paul country. Wikipedia especially, and to some extent all of free culture and open source projects, are consistent with a Randoid worldview. Wiki "collaboration" is not collaboration at all. It contains no true cooperation and is in fact hostile to cooperation. It is a chain of discreet individual choices meant to simulate an Randian free market via the edit button. It is driven by the assumption some invisible hand will shape all of these contending individual actions into a higher truth. All true collaboration, which requires discussion, debate and democratically arrived synthesis that is finally implemented through planning is antithetical to the basic ideology that lies behind the project and which permeates the very code of the software. That Wikipedia has some elements of dispute resolution and discussion is a grudging and un-admitted concession to the reality that this free hand approach does not work.

This is why such disruption and hysteria arises whenever Wikipedia's community comes into contact with social forces outside the project in areas such as child protection, pornography and accommodating the need of outside communities such as was the case in the images of Mohammed matter. The Randoid rightism of narrow selfishness is unleashed in full force for all the world to see. It is always interesting to see Mr. Wales cringe at these times. Concessions to "community discussion" on the site, even under Randiod rule exposes the cracks in his flawed dystopia. At times like this he probably most longs for his original vision...himself a Godking who grants his subjects only the freedom of the edit button.

Sectarian American leftists of thirty years ago had a saying "Left in form Right in substance" which describes the situation on Wikipedia nicely. Wkipedians might consider themselves to represent a broad spectrum of political viewpoint, even if tilted toward the Paul and Randoid views. Most see themselves as some variant of "social liberal" and some even espouse leftism, usually of boutique brands of the "left libertarian" or "anarcho-syndicalist" mold. They tend to get upset when they are shown to be Randoid dupes. So good luck with that.

Intelligent discussion returns to WR, for a bit. OK, but if I may play devil's advocate, how do you explain the posts below, all by Jimmy?

Of course, I can see how the bit about 'reason' (my bold) is consistent with Rand, since she paid at least lip service to 'reason'.

Jimmy, April 2002: "I think our wikipdia "code of honor" should be: never in anger, never in a fight over content. Those have to be settled "on a fair playing field", through reason, not software powers. Someday, there will probably be someone who we have to permanently ban. I dread that day, because I don't even know how we will accomplish it.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikip...ril/001719.html

" I am leary of any "editorial boards" or "validated" material coming back from Nupedia to Wikipedia automatically. It would seem appropriate to me for all inputs to Wikipedia to be conducted manually by community members or anonymous guests in accordance with community policies if it is merging into or overwriting existing material. I would dislike intensely any implication that Wikipedia material was/is routinely trumped and replaced by credentialism rather than normal editing and consensus building or discussion. I think it would be very detrimental to the potential quality of the content as a direct result of the reduced diversity of participation. "http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-September/004548.html

Jimmy Wales Apr 13 00:08:14 UTC 2002 "I would like to say that I personally "vouch" for The Cunctator, too. I think he's a valuable contributor. And I think he's a valuable "touchstone" for decisions that are made administratively, because he's highly skeptical of authority and he highly values openness. --Jimbo"
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikip...ril/001897.html

Jimmy Wales Aug 1 20:49:40 UTC 2002 "Old-hand/sysop -- should be granted in an apolitical manner based on being essentially "legit" -- sysops should be able to do a tiny number of destructive (irreversible) things, IF we need to have those abilities for some reason. (For example, some kinds of deletes do need to be irreversible for legal reasons.) This status should be granted more or less automatically, and whatever privileges it give should, by strong social custom, NEVER be used "in anger", i.e. to "pull rank to win an argument". There are only technical reasons to even have such a status. " "The main role that the Cunctator has taken for himself here is very much appreciated by me... I think that a big part of our success is openness and non-cabalism. Social pressure works better than the iron rule of code. "
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikip...ust/003332.html

[communicat]

A thoughtful conversation at last. IMHO the real paradox is that the key NPOV rule exists, but nobody or hardly anybody applies the letter and spirit of that rule. If they did so, all the ostensibly left-right content issues, and the fractiousness and unpleasantness that accompany them at WP would probably not arise. Problem is, NPOV is almost invariably interpreted at WP as meaning "the mainstream" POV, with no no room for "minority" or dissenting POVs. What might be "fringe" or "mainstream" in one country is not necessarily so in another. And so on. NPOV encyclopedic content, if it is to be truly encyclopedic, must accommodate sensibily all significant viewpoints, regardless of whether they're "left" or "right" or whatever. Perhaps wikipedians just don't understand what NPOV means, in which case the NPOV rule should be re-written in language so simple and lucid that even a 10-year-old can understand it. I suspect, however, that many wikipedians do in fact understand the rule perfectly well, but simply refuse to apply it, using a range of other rules to overturn the NPOV. Perhaps all the rules need to be rewritten and simplified to the extent that one rule cannot be used to invalidate another, which is often the case. It's a systemic paradox.

Above all, proper application of the NPOV rule requires real editing skill, of which there's virtually none at WP, contrary to the prevailing myth that "anyone can edit".

This post has been edited by communicat:

[Michaeldsuarez]

I feel that the ideology that best describes the one behind Wikipedia is what Utilitarians and Nihilists call "Crowdism":

http://www.amerika.org/social-reality/the-...ology-of-a-mob/

http://www.corrupt.org/about/

http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/crowdism/

[communicat]

I feel that the ideology that best describes the one behind Wikipedia is what Utilitarians and Nihilists call "Crowdism":

http://www.amerika.org/social-reality/the-...ology-of-a-mob/

http://www.corrupt.org/about/

http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/crowdism/

I think what best describes what's behind WP is that which Adolf Hitler referred to when he remarked: "How lucky for rulers that men do not think." Or how about Albert Einstein: "Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the former."

[Herschelkrustofsky]

It is driven by the assumption some invisible hand will shape all of these contending individual actions into a higher truth.

I suspect, however, that many wikipedians do in fact understand the rule perfectly well, but simply refuse to apply it, using a range of other rules to overturn the NPOV.

For the hard core Wikipedians that actually run the place, it's all about gaming the system, which means that the "invisible hand" actually belongs to you and your buddies, if you are on the winning team.

I think that "left" and "right" should be discarded as functionally useless terms. It was already understood in Plato's time that anarchic or "libertarian" impulses converge on totalitarianism, which seems paradoxical to people who are attracted to simple formulae. The alternative is a constitutional republic premised on certain agreed-upon philosophical objectives, which for Randroids of all persuasions is totally unacceptable. Instead, Wikipedia is based upon a list of policies which are treated as a Lockean "social contract," which establishes a system that is ready to be gamed.

[Peter Damian]

It was already understood in Plato's time that anarchic or "libertarian" impulses converge on totalitarianism, which seems paradoxical to people who are attracted to simple formulae.

As one attracted, even addicted to simple formulae, I would ask to to run that past me again. How can anarchic impulses converge upon totalitarianism?

[Herschelkrustofsky]

It was already understood in Plato's time that anarchic or "libertarian" impulses converge on totalitarianism, which seems paradoxical to people who are attracted to simple formulae.

As one attracted, even addicted to simple formulae, I would ask to to run that past me again. How can anarchic impulses converge upon totalitarianism?

It's a pendulum effect -- the anarchoids create enough chaos that there is a general hue and cry for order, at which point a man on a white horse arrives and promises order if he is simply given absolute authority. After a while people chafe under his yoke, and the anarchoid impulses resume. It's difficult to break out of this cycle; it requires some very thoughtful, disciplined and persistent leaders, like Benjamin Franklin.

[Peter Damian]

It was already understood in Plato's time that anarchic or "libertarian" impulses converge on totalitarianism, which seems paradoxical to people who are attracted to simple formulae.

As one attracted, even addicted to simple formulae, I would ask to to run that past me again. How can anarchic impulses converge upon totalitarianism?

It's a pendulum effect -- the anarchoids create enough chaos that there is a general hue and cry for order, at which point a man on a white horse arrives and promises order if he is simply given absolute authority. After a while people chafe under his yoke, and the anarchoid impulses resume. It's difficult to break out of this cycle; it requires some very thoughtful, disciplined and persistent leaders, like Benjamin Franklin.

ah that would be Plato then. I'm with you.

[Milton Roe]

It was already understood in Plato's time that anarchic or "libertarian" impulses converge on totalitarianism, which seems paradoxical to people who are attracted to simple formulae.

As one attracted, even addicted to simple formulae, I would ask to to run that past me again. How can anarchic impulses converge upon totalitarianism?

Since nobody can agree as to just what "anarchy" means, that's hard to say. In one sense, "goverment" is impossible to get rid of, since in any society somebody (or some group) will always be better armed than everybody else (as a matter of logic) and that person or group can be easily regarded as the defacto government, since they win all political arguments (or at least do not loose any, since the first argument would be to remove their weapons, which they naturally would refuse to do lest they lose all the next ones, which would degenerate to removing their property next, and make them slaves). Government is that which resists all attempted political control from without. What else would you call it? If The State cannot force me to do something, then I have become my own State.

"Anarchy" is a rather oxymoronic idea, rather like free will, square circles, compassionate god, and so on. It's probably best not to use it. Or even think about it, except in deciding it's best not to use it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

It is an error to attempt to place fringe philosophies on a right-left spectrum. Objectivism is a fringe philosophy that rejects many of the principles that the mainstream accepts, and is therefore too far off the beaten track to meaningfully fall into the right-left spectrum.

Objectivists, fundamentally, are narcissists bordering on solipists. Objectivists generally support totalitarianism because they believe that their inherent superiority (every Objectivist I have ever meant has the firm, unshakeable conviction that they are categorically well above average) will ensure that they will be in the ruling caste, where the strict regulation of the rabble will protect their property, while at the same time giving them absolute freedom to do as they please without repercussion. The key characteristic of Objectivism, from what I've seen, seems to be this belief that there is a near-speciation of humanity: the rabble, who deserve nothing, and the elite, who deserve absolute freedom. Note that they won't admit this, and will object to it strenuously if you say it, but nonetheless they all believe it.

Of course, if you believe that you're a member of a small elite that is, by virtue of innate superiority, naturally entitled to rule, you're going to be very prone to favor totalitarianism, as long as you're the ruler....

[communicat]

"Anarchy" is a rather oxymoronic idea, rather like free will, square circles, compassionate god, and so on. It's probably best not to use it. Or even think about it, except in deciding it's best not to use it.

Roe might be surprised to learn that the WP "Anarchism" article (edited presumably by knowledgeable anarchists) is in fact one of the most (perhaps the only) comparatively conflict-free political topic at WP. Perhaps Roe should read it, seeing as he currently doesn't seem to have a clue what anarchism actually means (in the classical, not perjorative, sense of the term).

[anthony]

"Anarchy" is a rather oxymoronic idea, rather like free will, square circles, compassionate god, and so on. It's probably best not to use it.

I think you're right on that (*). I found it amusing how the Occupy Wall Street folks now are dealing with the people who don't care about the "movement" coming down and partaking of the free food, sex, and drugs.

And even those who do believe that anarchism is a valid topic generally agree that it isn't "right" or "left".

(*) Except for the free will part. Could you explain (or point me to an explanation of) why free will is oxymoronic?

[GlassBeadGame]

Well this thread is certainly progressing in a predictable direction. The Tea Party is the same as Occupy Wall Street. Politics are an illusion. Nothing to see here.

[Kelly Martin]

Well this thread is certainly progressing in a predictable direction. The Tea Party is the same as Occupy Wall Street. Politics are an illusion. Nothing to see here.

That's because we have a surplus of people here who can only see political philosophy in binary: "Mine", and "Not mine". Lots and lots of that going on above.

[anthony]

"Anarchy" is a rather oxymoronic idea, rather like free will, square circles, compassionate god, and so on. It's probably best not to use it. Or even think about it, except in deciding it's best not to use it.

Roe might be surprised to learn that the WP "Anarchism" article (edited presumably by knowledgeable anarchists) is in fact one of the most (perhaps the only) comparatively conflict-free political topic at WP. Perhaps Roe should read it, seeing as he currently doesn't seem to have a clue what anarchism actually means (in the classical, not perjorative, sense of the term).

I'm not sure why you presume the anarchism article is edited by knowledgeable anarchists, nor why that would make any difference.

Just reading the first few sentences of the anarchism article it's plain to see that it isn't going to help one figure out what anarchism actually means. " generally defined"..."or alternatively"..."many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive"..."supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism".

Well this thread is certainly progressing in a predictable direction. The Tea Party is the same as Occupy Wall Street. Politics are an illusion. Nothing to see here.

That's because we have a surplus of people here who can only see political philosophy in binary: "Mine", and "Not mine". Lots and lots of that going on above.

I can never tell if "GlassBeadGame" is being sarcastic or serious, but as for seeing political philosophy in binary, that's because it is binary. It only takes a single contradiction to collapse an entire logical system.

This post has been edited by anthony:

[GlassBeadGame]

I can never tell if "GlassBeadGame" is being sarcastic or serious,

Go with that first one.

[communicat]

"Anarchy" is a rather oxymoronic idea, rather like free will, square circles, compassionate god, and so on. It's probably best not to use it. Or even think about it, except in deciding it's best not to use it.

Roe might be surprised to learn that the WP "Anarchism" article (edited presumably by knowledgeable anarchists) is in fact one of the most (perhaps the only) comparatively conflict-free political topic at WP. Perhaps Roe should read it, seeing as he currently doesn't seem to have a clue what anarchism actually means (in the classical, not perjorative, sense of the term).

I'm not sure why you presume the anarchism article is edited by knowledgeable anarchists, nor why that would make any difference.

Just reading the first few sentences of the anarchism article it's plain to see that it isn't going to help one figure out what anarchism actually means. " generally defined"..."or alternatively"..."many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive"..."supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism".

Well this thread is certainly progressing in a predictable direction. The Tea Party is the same as Occupy Wall Street. Politics are an illusion. Nothing to see here.

That's because we have a surplus of people here who can only see political philosophy in binary: "Mine", and "Not mine". Lots and lots of that going on above.

I can never tell if "GlassBeadGame" is being sarcastic or serious, but as for seeing political philosophy in binary, that's because it is binary. It only takes a single contradiction to collapse an entire logical system.

Jeez, what next. Never heard of dialectics? Clearly not.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Well this thread is certainly progressing in a predictable direction. The Tea Party is the same as Occupy Wall Street. Politics are an illusion. Nothing to see here.

Actually, Bead, the Tea Party is the same as Occupy Wall Street. Remember that originally the Tea Party issues were the bailout, and then Obamacare (which is also the bailout.) They were a bunch of naive persons with no political acumen to speak of, so they were soon bought up by the Republicans and began shouting for austerity. However, many of them have now had a taste of austerity themselves and they don't like it, so they are attending the OWS rallies (there were 1000 of the across the country on Friday.) Of course, the OWS people are also naive and lacking in political acumen, but they have the benefit of input from the LaRouchistas and have consequently adopted Glass-Steagall as their main policy objective. Now we're getting somewhere.