This is a kind of pointless topic, but I just thought I'd share my feelings about Wikipedia. I'm not against editing Wikipedia. I do it myself every now and then. But the degree of profundity that some of its editors give it is actually kind of scary. Here are a few examples of goodbye posts left for Essjay that kind of concerned me:

"Fare thee well

I'm very sorry to hear that you are leaving. You have inspired many Wikipedians including myself, even though I have never met you personally. Just remember:

Whenever you turn on the computer,

and perhaps do a Google search.

See the result up the top?

It's Wikipedia.

A community of users,

helping to make the world a better place.

And that once you helped us all.

and you will be remembered.


Farewell and thank you, ab imo pectore"

"Goodbye

I know that you may have quit and you may not know me (I admit most of my user page was based on yours) but I know that in your heart you know that you will return..."

I mean, its just a stupid website for Pete's sake! It's posts like these that make me think that Wikipedia is really some kind of elaborate cult trying to brainwash people or something. Lol.

I'm not really seeing anything "cultish" in that posting. Say what you will about Essjay, but he had a lot of friends and he was (except for the lying and possibly accusing an award-winning journalist of trying to bribe him i.e. "compensate for his time") a pretty nice guy.

Back to the question of is Wikipedia a cult? I'd say yes... yes, it is.

Jimbo Wales is seen as a god-king by more than a few high-ranking Wikipedians. I thought the god-king concept was just bull-honky until I saw his treatment of User:Zoe (who was a loyal Wikipedian and certainly an ally of Jimbo) during the Dr. Pierce fiasco.

See for reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ierce_situation

The vultures did come down hard on Zoe after Jimbo chewed her out. Regardless of what others thought of Zoe, it was a cruel thing and no one really stood up to Jimbo. Some politely suggested he was a bit too harsh, but no one came and yelled at him "Hey! Leave her alone, ya big bully! She was only trying to help the Project!"

And what's worse is that anytime anyone has an idea (especially one that the community would likely reject), that person just goes to Jimbo asking him if he likes it. If Jimbo says ANYTHING that indicates that he is partial to it, little can be done (even if the community wants to reject it) because his gang will come down on the opposers as not being loyal to project!

The community must stand up to this Dictator of the Proletariat and say "No more!" and if he protests, the response shall be: "NO TALKPAGE! SPEEDY DELETION!"

Yeesh, I'm starting to sound like one of the more militant WRers here! But the fact that the community really has no power when Jimbo's around seems to fly in the face of the whole Wiki concept.

Considering Seth Finkelstein's recent entries into the WikiEN-l mailing list, and how readily the Wikipedia insiders shot down any notion that Wikipedia is a cult, I am interested in refining and exploring this question just a little further.

I don't even know where to begin with this discussion, though. I would say that it's first more important to distinguish between a discussion about "What is Wikipedia?" and "What is the Wikipedia Community?".

Personally, I think it would be helpful to consider that Wikipedia is truly "an online project to create an encyclopedia that is written by many collaborators". At least that's what it claims to be, and I think that 99% of fair witnesses would agree with that definition. Those who wouldn't would probably argue on the basis that it can't ever really be an "encyclopedia" because that word implies a level of "trustworthiness" that Wikipedia can't ever achieve. Yadda yadda. I know.

But, let's talk about what (I believe) more people are really trying to define now: "What is the Wikipedia Community?"

To begin this discussion, I would like to throw out a few terms, try to offer some examples of organizations or structures that I think are defined by those terms, and then we can intelligently (or humorously) discuss our thoughts.

Is it a religion, such as Catholicism, Islam, or Swedenborgianism?

Is it a confidence scheme, such as Scientology, a Ponzi scheme, or Amway? (Sorry if I just offended anyone.)

Is it a secret or esoteric society, such as Knights of Columbus, the Ku Klux Klan, the mafia, or the Freemasons?

Is it an exclusive club, such as Mensa International, The Order of Skull and Bones, or the Red Hat Society?

Is it a voluntary association, such as Americans for Fair Taxation, Jewish Federation, or Students for Organ Donation?

Or, is it a cult, such as Branch Davidians, Aesthetic Realism, or Erhard Seminars Training?

I should add here that I've had conversations today with the leadership of the International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA), namely Carol Giambalvo and Dr. Michael Langone. While I do not want to try to quote Langone directly here, I don't think he would mind my sharing that he advised me in this general way:



I asked Dr. Langone if his organization would be interested in examining Wikipedia for cult-like behaviors. After pointing me to this must-read material, he responded approximately:



He hopes that the mainstream media will continue to expose the project's failings and even its cultish aspects, so that common people will have the appropriate amount of doubt with anything they read there. When I described my history with Wikipedia, he sagely commented, "So, you were just feeding the beast?"

Indeed. My brain had been sufficiently washed to want to feed content to Wikipedia. At least I was trying to exploit that task for personal gain, as well. Kind of like doing Halliburton's taxes for them. Only a foolish accountant would do that for free.

Wikipedia does quote Langone as describing a cult as such:



Excessive dedication to Jimmy Wales and the idea of the biggest encyclopedia, to the point of personal harm?

I wonder how Essjay is doing? Brad Patrick? Danny Wool?

Greg

I think it's understandable, given that until fairly recently, even the major media was drinking Jimbo's Kool-Aid. That's why it's so important to turn the media around. This board is a big help in doing this.

I didn't have your problem because I got involved with Wikipedia by reacting to SlimVirgin. I was instantly in shock and awe that any anonymous person like that could deprive me of my basic rights, and be backed up by Jimbo himself, and — as I knew would be the case sooner rather than later — all of Google. If SlimVirgin and Jimbo were smart, they would have killed my bio immediately and salted it.

Even Google leaves me alone, despite the fact that I'm openly scraping them to the tune of 62,000 scrapes per day on Scroogle, without ever asking for their permission. Google is smarter than Wikipedia. But both belong in Hell, condemned to link to each other for all eternity.

I don't really think Wikipedia is a cult, it is more of a chaotic mess where the various groups of lunatics rule various parts of the asylum. There is some Jimbo worship, among the lower castes, but I think it is more a distraction that anything else. Jimbo isn't particularly effective, but he is still a figure head.

Sounds like Hell.

http://danteworlds.laits.utexas.edu/utopia/index2.html.

I guess that makes jimbo Asmodeus.

http://www.deliriumsrealm.com/delirium/art...iew.asp?Post=97

You forgot what WP really is, and that's Role-Playing Game!

It's really a new, and possibly unique, hybrid of RPG and "cult movement," with the encyclopedia itself as the object... Jimbo isn't so much a "personalist cult leader" as a sort of high priest, with upper-level admins as disciples, lower-level admins as acolytes, yada yada yada. The important thing is that "the project" is paramount. But we should be beyond the definitional stage at this point, at least in my opinion...

I've been working on this issue for a few weeks now, and it was going to be one of the things I was going to start my new website with, but this is a basic outline of how Wikipedia is cult-like, according to Somey (that's me!), and I would regard this as a rough draft. Obviously I'm putting the "non-cultish aspects" at the bottom because I'm biased, but at least I'm trying to be somewhat fair. (For now.)

Highly cultish aspects of WP:
Presumption of Morality (see here, here, and especially here)
Presumption of Primacy (COI redefinition - as Wikipedian, your primary interest is WP, not yourself)
Identity confusion via anonymity/pseudonymity/sockpuppetry
Fundamental problem (vandalism, "trolling") requiring constant "defending against"
Reward and Retribution System (incl. heavy reliance on talismans and symbols (i.e., barnstars, etc.)
Love-Bombing (though less prevalent since you-know-who left)
Punitive banishment and allowance of redemption - classic psychological manipulation tactic
Demonization of enemies via irrational hyperbole as "stalkers" and "trolls"
Redefinition of Love and Hate (i.e., "WikiLove" vs. "Trolling")
Dismissal of mildly-critical outsiders as "clueless," "idiots," and "whiners"

Marginally cultish aspects:
No significant barrier to entry (i.e., no required qualifications)
Charismatic leadership (though leader insists otherwise)
High-level decisions made by secretive cabals (or perception thereof)
Higher-purpose rhetoric surrounding project(s) that by their very nature can never be completed
Exploitation of psychological addiction (which itself is treated as "user's own problem")
Fully-internalized definitions of "quality" and "suitability" (similar to that of an artist's commune)

Carrots:
No need for physical presence; physical attractiveness/repulsiveness a non-issue
Illusion of academic standing and "established" expertise
Adminship as designation of "trusted and respected" status
Adminship as a form of personal power over others

Sticks:
Bans (and permanent records thereof)
Punitive article deletions and content removals (very rare, but does happen)
Punitive article forkings (also rare)
Refusal to delete unauthorized biographical articles as retaliation tactic (almost unheard of, except for one...)

Non-cultish aspects:
No significant barrier to exit (at least for non-addicts)
No monetary demands (other than ongoing normal fundraising)
Unusual degree of openness at lower levels of decisionmaking process
No enforcement of ideological conformity (ideology treated as irrelevant to standing within community)
Far greater tolerance of dissent and betrayal than most cults (esp. if using narrow definition of "cult"), though this may be changing)
Conflicts among top levels of hierarchy ("wheel-warring") merely frowned upon in most cases
Encouragement of users to involve themselves in similar projects not controlled by WMF

Quite an accurate way to put it Somey. Did you come up with all that by yourself? It's a very good analysis in my opinion.

Somey, there are times when your non-participation in the Wikipedia subcult(ure) limits your appreciation of its full mystique. I'm afraid that this is one of those times when it takes a de-wiki-programmed recovering e-ddict to comprehend the depths of its death-grip on people.

I have already said a lot about this issue on other threads, under other names, but I will try to say a little more about it later ...

Jonny

I can probably point to some really cultish things, if my definition of cult is correct. I think that we wield WP:V/WP:NOR too often.

There's also the rather ridiculous statement that "we don't vote, we discuss," which to me is mostly used as a way to excuse consensus and just promote controversial candidates. It is defended to the zenith. For instance, Sean Black/Carnildo/Ryulong were all promoted under controversial circumstances, below 75% majority, and the only argument that the defenders had was "it's not a vote."

There's also Wikipedia:Esperanza, whose two MFD discussions generated an amazing 279KB and 238KB of deletion debate. I think Esperanza itself deserves some mention, as those were two very huge debates about just a WikiProject.

Only in the most naive world can one use the word "possibly". Words have meanings, and we must defer to the usual meanings, not the made-up ones in WP-land. And I must also note that all confidence men and women are "pretty nice people" ... according to their victims.

I don't think its a cult. I do think it has a strong group dynamic that seems to encourage abuse of power.

Like most things on the Internet that require organization, it prefers the fascist control model with a single individual whose decisions are sacrosanct, a number of people in a position of power who shouldn't ever be given such power and a large number of peons who do the actual work.

I think people misunderstand and underestimate the power of groupthink - especially when the stated aim of the project is so laudable. Large numbers of people have given lots of time and energy to the project only to be crushed by abusive administrators.

It's Animal Farm all over again.

Let's examine Item 1. No significant barrier to exit (at least for non-addicts)?

What would you say about a political regime that let's you go skate in the Olympics, but keeps your wife and kids behind the Iron Curtain?

What would you say about a religious sect that keeps your first-born child as a hostage against anything you might say to the outside world?

All sorts of cabals and cults have all sorts of ways of maintaining their coercive holds on people.

What is the critical feature here? It is this — You cannot truly escape any system that maintains a death-grip on something of ultimate concern to yourself.

But don't take my word for it. Go ask Daniel Brandt what it's like to have your life and your good name get taken hostage by Wikipedian fanatics.

Jonny

Hmm, good point.

Okay, that should probably read "no physically coercive barrier to exit," or something along those lines, or maybe just get rid of that line...

I would think cases like yours, where you used your real name and put a hell of a lot of effort into some highly specialized, expertise-requiring material, and then ran afoul of various anal-retentives and policymongers and suchlike, are somewhat rare, but obviously they do happen.

Still, Brandt isn't a good example of this - he's obviously not personally invested in WP as a contributor in any way whatsoever.

Being invested in a field of study or a particular subject matter — to the point where constantly seeing ridiculous misinformation about it float to the top of your routine searches literally forces you to try and correct it — is one type of investment, and I'll discuss it further later.

But having your name and what purports to be your personal data turn up on a WikiPissoir wall, and being prevented by the Bus Station management from having it removed, is an equally compelling way of being held hostage to fartune.

When governments create dossiers like this — as they are periodically wont to do — the public is justifiably outraged. When the public comes to appreciate that gangs of adolescent thugs and info-hiway-robbers are doing the same thing, then I think the reaction will eventually be the same.

Jonny

I know this may not be the right place to ask this question, but I do not want to start a new thread. How do wikipedia admins find things like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=117806314

Do they have bots/cron jobs that scourge the talk pages? Do users stumble onto it and report it?

Cache:
I used the tool you recommended

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bi...l1/wannabe_kate

There are amazing things you can find out about an editor with that tool. I like how this (alleged) college student (Mathmo) is an expert on/in sex, seduction, and magic the gathering. Must be all book learning, accept the magic the gathering of course.

Both, actually! It's hardly "stumbled," though - there are any number of wannabe admins doing Recent Changes Patrol, 24 hours a day. And I'd have to say the automated page-creation edit summary of "Created page with 'Bradley! you are my baby and I miss you so much! I really want one of you sweet kisses! and I can't wait to finally meet Lilly!" is something of a dead giveaway in this case, as is this hilarious diff...

Still, I'm afraid that probably would be more appropriate for a separate thread.

Poor User:Willren... talk about living in poverty! The two people using this account can't even afford MySpace!

More interesting then most of the stuff I have read on wp, too bad they shutdown the soap opera, jealous admins! Willren seemed to be playing the field and using wp as a side channel. MCAT, no money, workout guru, partying, dorm room encounters; Page had it all

Heh heh... Spreadin' the ol' Wikilooovvvve... Hubba hubba!

Anyway, back to this whole cult thing.

Most of the discussion on this subject has now been effectively quashed over on WikiEN-L, where it ended like this. Dave Gerard's a smart guy, and he knows that Seth Finkelstein, who has a real job and everything, doesn't have time to wade through diffs and talk page histories and the rest of the Mountains of Crapola to find "evidence." Dave also knows that there's a time and place for the use of falsehoods when making your arguments on the internet - the time is "always," and the place is "Wikipedia."


Evidence-finding isn't really the point here anyway, is it? The people we're trying to convince of this stuff are the kids, the people who show up thinking WP is some sort of really cool/mature/intellectual place, and who then get sucked into it, their time monopolized, their energies drained, their perspectives on the world distorted and skewed... sort of like what cults do, actually! They don't care about evidence, they care about what their friends tell them. And who are their friends? Well, us, of course!

But there was one incident, a couple years ago... and I just now remembered where it is. They'll probably delete it completely now that I'm linking to it here, but all the same, it's rather hard to "show a shred of evidence" when the evidence in question is buried in old diffs on user subpages!

We've all been through this Give Us The Diffs game before.

I'd honestly explain it to anybody who hasn't seen it before,
But the plain fact is that it's become such a gawdawful bore.
Wikipedia has sunk past the intellectual level of network TV,
And I can hardly remember why it mattered to me and thee.

Jonny

I'd have to say that any group that engages in such blindness as this histronic sobbing farewell to a compulsive-lying jackass is clearly psychologically isolated from reality.

In such a mode of blindness to the differences between reality and wikiality, these people are certainly in a position to be in a cult. They have the mindset.

Exactamundo. Some of us more foolhardy volunteers have already paid our dues in the mosquito-invested wikiputrid jungle swamps, and some of us more savvy ediots have already cached our $10 Amazonian gift certificates for letting the mosquitoes byte us under controlled experimental conditions.

But we're way past that stage of the game now. The nature of the disease that is spreading outward from that infestation of Slim-Jim meat(puppet)heads is already evident enough to those who have the gnosis to smell their stink.

It's time to start draining those swamps ...

After which — maybe we can get back to that information canal thing we came here for ...

Jonny

Well now, this is a good point that's often overlooked, actually. When you think of real, honest-to-goodness cults, these things often start out with nothing more than a huckster, an idea, and a general mindset. Then they start developing things like supporting ideologies, rituals, retention strategies, ad nauseum, but these things take time - and Wikipedia has only been around for 5-6 years. That's certainly enough time to get started, but there's still a ways to go yet.

Wikipedia-as-cult won't really start taking off until the teenagers who helped grow it into a monster start getting married to other Wikipedians, having kids of their own, and then indoctrinating those kids into the Wikipedia Way. Cults don't get really scary until you start having to deal with people who have literally been raised to believe nothing else, at least with respect to the motivating central idea.

How soon before we start seeing kids like that, then? Five years? Ten? By then, the various legal and cultural questions will presumably have been resolved, right? Probably not entirely in their favor, but if it's enough to keep them in business, it may not matter by then.

Let us pray they spend too much time on Recent Edit Patrol to have sex ...

Or wait — Maybe we could sell them on the Heaven's Gate Way ...

Jonny

I dunno, Somey, I frequently suspect that people like Dan Tobias, who displays all the worldly wisdom of a 6-year old, may indeed already be members of the 2nd d-generation.

Jonny

Somey is right--it's mostly about the kids. So, for the kids I say:
WICKIPEDIA IS A CULT!
Carry on . . . .

Is this a personal attack board? Because, if so, then I could try to start making them too myself, just to "do as the Romans do".

Oh, Danny, y'know we're just goofin' around ...

Becydes, who has asked for it, if ~ u ???

Jonny

Well, you started it!

I mean, let me be perfectly frank here. You've got a fair amount of guts for participating in this forum, and I respect that. I mean that sincerely! What's more, I think Jon was actually complimenting you, since I happen to know that he believes most Wikipedians have the worldly wisdom of three-year olds, so presumably you have twice as much as them - depending on how you calculate it. (That, maybe, not so sincere... but anyway...)

The fact is, if you don't want us to "attack" you with this kind of name-calling, then you've got to avoid it yourself, and that means everywhere. Otherwise, it's just gonna happen. I can't imagine you want me to censor these people... do you? You, of all people? Why, I could hardly imagine.

But if that's true, then I'll make you a deal: If you can manage to publicly support a reasonable opt-out policy, based on, let's say, the no-first-biography/only-by-signed-request principle - which is probably the most reasonable one from WP's perspective that could still be considered acceptable by a civilized society - I can make you disappear from Wikipedia Review completely, remove all traces of your ever having joined, posted, or anything. You can forget this all ever happened... Like a bad dream, from which you wake up, and everything's perfectly fine again, and you're surrounded by really hot babes wearing, like, practically nothing whatsoever!

Whaddya say, Dan?