I am now accumulating a rather large collection of postings to the Citizendium List that have been rejected by Larry Sanger. A number of other correspondents on that list have reported the same experience. Since I always put a lot of thought -- and sometimes a lot of feeling -- into all my "failures to communicate", and since tomorrow is recycling day, I will try to salvage a portion of that thought and feeling for the sake of what good it might do if aired and shared in this Review. I invite others to do the same, as I gather that the number people of good will who are being invited out of Citizendia will grow day by day.

Jonny

Jonny

I had aready explained to Larry Sanger that I have a rule against conducting off-list discussions of project issues that are properly discussed in open forum, but the listserver software provides ample space for comments from the moderator in the process of rejecting a message. Here is how Larry Sanger answered my simple query about the relationship between the declared ideal of Strong Collaboration and the actual operation of the Citizendium Project:



Jonny

His refusal response is something he should have replied to the thread with instead.

That is my sense, too, of why we have discussion lists, y'know, to discuss things. I've been on and off quite a few of them -- including one that was managed by an army colonel -- but Larry Sanger's Citizendium List has got to be the most rigidly regimented, tightly censored "open" list that I've ever seen, bar none. Releasing all of the posts in a flood once or twice a day -- those that pass the tight-knit mesh of his hyper-sensitive filters -- is no way to encourage real dialogue among the members of the group, and you'd think it wasn't so much a discussion list as some kind of manicured publicity service that the group members were expected to provide for his personal pet project.

That's just the way I feel about it.

As to the content of his refusal notice, I wish he would have told me what the "objection" was that he thought I "obviously" wanted to make -- and then he could have addressed that objection and saved us a couple of steps. As it was, all I did was ask him to comment on the connection between the principles he espouses and the practices he enforces. I think that most folks comparing the two would probably have the same question.

I quoted a fairly large excerpt, but expecting people to read the whole thing is fair enough. All in good time. A lot of the manifesto was specific to the Text Outline Project, but Larry Sanger did refer to it on several occasions as though it supplied at least some of the planks of his Citizendium Platform.

So there it be.

Jonny

I would guess Sanger believes that you believe "the principles he espouses" don't match "the practices he enforces." You believe Sanger is a hypocrite, no?

That's the impression I got from the tone and prose of your first post. You seemed to be equivocating in an attempt to look neutral.

Speculation is a necessary component of human cognitive functioning. Sometimes it's a fun function and sometimes it's forced to be carried out under conditions of anxiety, irritation, and doubt that make it not such a fun function.

Speculation about what Other People are thinking (we're thinking they're thinking)*, where "*" is the so-called "kleene star" that signifies indefinite repetition of the affected phrase, will often make for a divine bit of comedy, but it may be recursedly futile in the end.

That is why we ask people : What were you thinking?

Saturday, Saturday ... errants to run ... more later ...

Jonny

To continue.

Here is how I see things. There are the statements that Larry Sanger has made about his principles and there are the actions that he has taken in setting up the Citizendium project. When I compare these two sets of things I find many discrepancies between them. It seems to me that these discrepancies would be rather obvious to anybody who examines the givens, but they can be pointed out point by point if necessary.

Is this enough to say that Larry Sanger is a hypocrite? Of course not -- who would scape a whipping for that? Being human means experiencing a tension between our ideals an our reals. Hypocrisy is of course one hypothesis that might be entertained when we observe a persistent lack of action to narrow the gap, but it is only one of many candidate explanations.

So what's the use of calling attention to the discrepancies that all of us exhibit in this regard?

Precisely to assist each other in harmonizing our reality with our ideals.

That is why we have Criticism.
That is why we have Civilization.
That is why we have this Review.

Jonny

This is what he would like you to point out. These are the "objections you obviously want to make."



I'd say it is.



Yes. Another good explanation woulod be that you do not understand, interpret, or know Sanger's principles or practices well enough (and in depth enough) to qualify and substaniate your belief that his practices are hypocritical.



So you want to help Sanger "harmonize his reality with his ideals?" Perhaps he believes they are already harmonized and finds your insinuation that he is not insulting.

Ben,

Let me acquaint you with your audience. You are speaking to intelligent adults with normal perceptions who do not suffer fools gladly. We have very little interest in playing the sorts of childish patty-cake games that are so pandemic on Wikipedia. (There, JohnA, I used two p-words in a row without prepending a "wiki" in front of them -- see, I'm well on my way to recovery.) We have our fun, but we have a deadly serious purpose for being here that we do not forget about in the long run, however wild we get on weekends.

So watch out for that.

Now, if you affect to be Larry Sanger's agent, go-between, or hermeneut, to interpret his wishes or to speak flat out as his proxy, then please go-between back to your agendeur and tell him to speak for himself. I gave him the opportunity to do so once already on the list to which I originally sent this message, and he refused that opening for discussion on his supposedly "open" discussion list.

Jonny

I, for one, am not falling for your spin on this.

You think Sanger is a hypocrite, and you are trying to troll him into "proving it for himself" by passive-aggressively asking him to compare his own principles and practices.

The reason you ask Sanger to do it for you is because you can't be bothered to prove it (shown over and over again in this thread), and because you want to attack his comparison should he make one so you can prove, rhetorically and without evidence, that he is not not a hypocrite.

Another reason you ask Sanger to do it is so you can suggest to your audience (the mailing list) that he is a hypocrite without having to prove anything. This is why you are so upset that Sanger did not leave your message up.

Sometimes people get caught up in stuff like this and don't even realize that they are trolling people. I sincerely hope that this what has happend to you, and you're quite innocent.

Trouble is, you're not the type to admit it. Me telling you this will only make you more and more defensive, and so this is probably making whatever is causing you to passive-aggressively attack Sanger even worse. In that sense, this isn't really for your benefit, but mainly for the benefit of other readers who might fall for your little siren song.

Furthermore, don't talk down to me again you little {EXPLETIVE DELETED}.

Dear Ben,

You need to spend more time talking to real people. You can't read their minds quite so easily as imaginary friends, but it's ultimately more satisfying in the long run.

Jonny

(POSTING BY BEN CONTAINING VULGARITIES DELETED (SORRY))

C'mon, Ben, don't make me do things like that! Please? It's OK if we insult each other on occasion, but try to do it creatively, with less vitriol and without gratuitous vulgarities. Jon clearly rubs certain people the wrong way, but flaming doesn't solve much of anything.

Meanwhile, Jon, I'd actually have to agree that efforts to change Sanger's attitudes directly, no matter how clearly self-defeating those attitudes are, are clearly not likely to work. I'm not sure what the solution is -there may not be one - but at some point, we have to ask whether or not those efforts are worth pursuing at all, if he's only going to use them as examples of how people in general fail to live up to his personal expectations.

Yes, Jonny Cache's motto is:

• 7. You can rub some of the people some of the wrong ways some of the time.
• 6. You can rub some of the people some of the wrong ways all of the time.
• 5. You can rub some of the people all of the wrong ways some of the time.
• 4. You can rub some of the people all of the wrong ways all of the time.
• 3. You can rub all of the people some of the wrong ways some of the time.
• 2. You can rub all of the people some of the wrong ways all of the time.
• 1. You can rub all of the people all of the wrong ways some of the time.
• 0. You can't rub all of the people all of the wrong ways all of the time.
• But you can sure as hecque try.

In sum -- it's a rubby job, but somebody's got to do it.

As to the Pragmatics of Criticism and the Purpose of Review, the career of Critic is way below Fireman on Every Good Boy's roster of dream jobs, but it's the sort thing that we find ourselves being Bak-Drafted into by all the crappy pieces of work that Man produces, no offense to the SlimVirginals that vie for last place in Our Gang O' Good Ole Boys.

Therefore, though we may hold out the Slimmest Hope -- that delusive sprite that rises from the _|_ of Pandora's Box -- of reaching the primary, er, non-original author of the work in question, that is not actually the Be-All-End-All of the hermeneutics of review.

So, yes, I realize that I am as one who sees the loco-motive headed for the wiki-washed-out bridge, and I am as one who keeps pelting the Engineer with e-lectric spitwads as a way of shouting Look Out !!! Bridge Out !!! -- and I can hear that whistle just keep on blowing, so loud the touted horn that I know as how nobody near that Engine of Destruction can hear me, see me, feel me -- but still, but still, but still, it may just save a few Innocents from climbing all aboard the Executive Board.

So there it is ... my duty is clear ...

Jonny Cache-Android

Thanks for the tip Somey. You do a very good imitation of SlimVirgin. I especially like how you didn't even care (or notice) that Jonny insulted me too. But I guess his highly offensive and condescending insult to my integrity, intelligence, wordliness, faculties, etc. was much more creative than me telling him to "fuck off" or calling him a "passive-aggressive coward."

Clearly you think what I said is so much more offensive that it deserves censorship. I find this strange, so let me say that perhaps you need to stop trying to read Jonny's mind. You need to get out into the real world. Have you been talking to your imaginary friends lately? You will feel much better once you're living in the real world. I'm just saying this to be nice to you, I'm just being helpful. Cool?

Do you follow politics at all? This is Jonny Cache's strategy:

1. "Sanger, could you compare your own principles and your own practices? Please comment on the differences and on how you are being a hypocrite."
2. "No need to get angry. I was just wondering if you were for your principles before you were against them? I'm just asking for a comment."
3. "Larry Sanger got mad at a simple question. It seems Sanger is waffling on this issue."
4. "Larry Sanger is a flip-flopper."
5. "There goes Larry 'Waffle House' Sanger, waffling and flip-flopping on the issues as usual. Why would anyone trust him?"

Jonny "Karl Rove" Cache's passive-aggressive trolling "zzerrr you are a hypocrite flip-flopper" does more to discredit this board than a couple of swear words.

If you cannot smell the bullshit, go apply to be an admin on Wikipedia. I cannot give Jon the benefit of the doubt anymore. He's doing it on purpose. He's a troll and by not challenging him you're letting him run rampant, and with "Wikipedia Review" stamped on everything he says.

Hell, just read what he says when he's not trolling:


Blah blah blah. Worthless sophistry. He thinks he's some sort of Grand Poobah.

Dear Ben,

Do I really strike you as the sort of person who cannot call a hypocrite a hypocrite if I reckon that person to be a hypocrite? It just ain't plausible. If that was my opinion then I would not have the slightest difficulty saying so. I just ain't that diplomatic.

The question that I asked of Larry Sanger was a straightforward interview question. It was not loaded one way or the other. It described a situation that was open to all observers and simply asked for a comment. It should have been something of a soft-ball, really.

But I cannot have a discussion with somebody who keeps attributing remarks to me that I did not make. That is what I mean by affecting to read other people's minds. It's one thing to guess, but it's another thing to keep insisting when they have said what their opinion is.

Jonny

Yes, you do. Quite strongly.


I strongly disagree.


I am not talking about diplomacy, I am talking about purposeful deception and manipulation of your target, and your audience.



No, it wasn't.


Yes, it was.


No, it didn't describe any situation. It implied an argument, one that most people would find offensive.


For Sanger's comment, yes.


My opinion on any agenda you have is my opinion, nothing more. I attributed no remarks to you.


Not if they are being disingenuous when they say what their opinion is.


I don't like your sunglasses. I think they are stupid.

Well, admittedly, I've been meaning to change out that particular emoticon...

So at the risk of just making things worse here, let's try to get to the heart of the matter. There are those of us who think Citizendium, and Sanger, should be given every chance of succeeding, without being beset by various people who insist that he's making the same mistakes all over again, isn't looking at WP's problems realistically, and so on. And then there are those of us who think that if we bash the project, and him, just enough, maybe he'll consider doing things differently, and save everyone a lot of wasted effort. There are also those of us who would rather see all anonymous collaborative knowledge-compendium projects fail outright, simply because the whole concept is irretrievably repugnant in some way... And there are still more of us who think the whole thing's just a big joke, though admittedly a bad one. I'm sure there are other perspectives on it, so if I've left yours out, please forgive me.

Ben, I did notice that Jon insulted you, and it would be best for us all if he'd avoid that sort of thing, but there's only a tiny minority of us who can actually understand what he writes anyway. (I sometimes wonder if I'm even one of them.) Whereas, we all understand what those seven dirty words mean... they kind of stick out, I'm afraid. Nevertheless, I'm sorry to have gone all SlimVirginny on you.

Meanwhile, if you're saying that Jon here has tried to present himself on the Citizendium forums/mailing list as somehow representing this website's membership in general, I haven't seen much evidence of that, other than his posting some cross-reference links on both sites. But maybe I haven't been looking hard enough. And Jon, without meaning to sound too accusatory, obviously we'd all want to discourage you (and anyone else) from engaging in that sort of activity, if only out of respect for everyone else, no matter how justifiable it might seem at the time.

As for me, I wish I could say I have a strong opinion on this whole Citizendium thing, but to be honest, I really don't. I do sometimes think it would be better for rampaging negativists like myself to keep a respectful distance, at least at first, and give them a chance - I don't see how it could be worse than Wikipedia after all, even if it is just trading one "cabal" and mess of incoherent rules for another. And yet, I've come to believe that one of the most offensive things someone can do to another person, or to society at large, is to convince them (hypocritically or otherwise) to waste their time what ultimately amounts to a load of crap.

So I guess all I'm saying is that we're going to have to agree to disagree on some of this stuff. I know that's what you were expecting me to say, but it's a fine line between saving the internet from fools and charlatans on the one hand, and saving the people who use it from a different bunch of fools and charlatans on the other. Not that we're doing either of those things all that effectively at the moment, of course... But at least we're trying, I suppose. Somebody has to!

Sorry, guys, I am really confused now -- I really have no idea where any of you are coming from. I do have my honesty, no matter how ironically it becomes necessary to express it in certain types of social settings, and that is something for which I have paid dearly, so I do intend to keep at least that one faculty intact. Social harmony is nice when you can get it without losing your integrity, but there are things that have a higher priority than camaraderie -- the very lesson they so fantastically keep failing to learn at Wikipedia.

Ben tu long at the fair ...

Edios fora wile ...

Jonny

Can you fill this out, Jonny?

Definitions:

Hypocrite: "a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs."

1. Do you believe Sanger is a hypocrite?

Yes/No/Maybe

2. (a) If the answer to question 1 is "Yes" or "Maybe," fill in the following:

I believe Sanger is/might be a hypocrite. I believe this can be demonstrated by the time when Sanger said/did __________ . I believe this is in contradiction to Sanger's principle/statement ___________ which suggests Sanger should have done __________ instead. I asked him to compare his principles and practices because ____________.

2. (b) If the answer to question 1 is "No," fill in the following:

I believe Sanger is not a hypocrite. I asked him to compare his principles and practices because ____________.

Please don't, I've grown accustomed to my face. Plus I discovered this summer that shades cool my brain down by 10 degrees or more, and all these years I could been saving really big bucks on tranqs.


I can't imagine why anyone would think that I am representing the views of anyone but myself. I put a lot of thought into the feedback that I provide people. That thought is based on quite a bit of well-grounded theory and hard-knocks practical experience with many of the relevant issues. If they don't have the good sense to appreciate the information I offer then somebody else might be able to make use of my observations and recommendations at a later date.

Once again, it is appropriate for this Review to consider generic reflections on concrete cases, since the purpose of Critical Review is to improve a genre, a general class of products or works. The cases in hand may be destined to fail -- may indeed be lost causes already-- but that does not prevent us from learning something from their mistakes that will benefit the next effort at a similar, hopefully not too similar venture.


It was my initial estimate when Citizendium started that nobody could create a bigger mess than Wikipedia. But one of the things that I have learned since that time is just how many of the policies at the bottom of Wikipedia were actually authored by Larry Sanger. That could be about as cogent as blaming the creations of Nietzsche and Wagner for the devastations of Hitler, but it does suggest that we pause and reflect on how and where the seeds of chaos sprang into being.

Jonny

I have already stated my position on this hypocrisy question.

Jonny

I'm not sure why we're even talking about "hypocrisy." Who really cares if Sanger is a hypocrite or not? It seems to me the real issues are competence, perspective, and staying power.

That is to say, if Sanger doesn't know what he's doing, if he can't run Citizendium properly in terms of both technical competence and strong ethics-based administration, then CZ is probably doomed. If he can't see things the way others see them, if he can only deal with having everything exactly his way or not at all, then he can't resolve disputes, and CZ is even more doomed. And if he starts to lose interest at the first sign of trouble or even lack of popularity, then CZ is almost certainly doomed.

Wikipedia is full of hypocrites and hypocrisy - it practically oozes out of the browser window when you click on each new link. That hasn't exactly stopped the ol' WP choo-choo train though, has it? It's still hugely popular in terms of both usage and participation, though I'd hasten to remind the Wikipedians reading this that popularity and quality, not to mention moral virtue, are not at all the same thing. (It seems they need to be reminded of this almost constantly, sad to say.)

I, for one, hope Sanger is everything he claims to be. If he isn't, if he's just another dot-com charlatan who craves attention and phony respect, then shame on him. But like I say, I haven't made up my mind yet. (Not that me making up my mind is likely to change anything!)

Anyway, Jon, I didn't mean to accuse you of misrepresentation... Maybe Ben simply means that because you're identifiable and post here fairly frequently, people are going to associate us all with you no matter what, subconsciously, semi-consciously, or unconsciously... And to be fair, he may be right about that. But as much as I despise the whole guilt-by-association mindset that pervades Web 2.0-land, IMO we just can't worry about it all that much. If a few wikiwackjobs can't manage to distinguish groups from their individual members, that's their problem (though of course I will spare no effort in shaming them over it). And the fact that it's a classic attitude among Faithful Wikipedians isn't a good enough reason for me or anyone else to make a lot of unpleasant compromises.

The "creative" misspellings, though... I could see having a nice little witch-hunt over that, maybe.

I did not introduce the predicate of hypocrisy, partly because it is such a difficult question to decide. Thinkers from Socrates to Turing have observed how hard it is to tell a master hypocrite from a true believer, and I did not want to rush in where angels of that order have feared to tread.

My probable brother Jonny the Greek is always telling me how human life is all about placing your bets long before they are sure. And you don't have to decide every question in order to settle on a course of action. For instance, last week I had to make a whole ballot full of decisions like that. If I have decided that X is either a fool or a liar, I don't really have to decide which in order to vote for somebody else.

So I deliberately used words like "disconnection" and "discrepancy" to describe the situation, and my request for a comment reflected a genuine desire to hear what Larry Sanger would say about it.


What mispellings ???

Jonny

Can you please fill it out to clarify your position? I would like to better understand your position.

Do you mean "I would like to understand your position better"?

Ben,

If I thought that filling out that form would clarify matters I would do so, but your cookie-cutter form cuts my dough in all the wrong places and trying to fit my actual words into it cuts wholly against the grain of what I care about here.

Let us go back to the place where things went off track, the place where you introduced the word "hypocrite" into the discussion:


There's no way for me to peel the onion of a phrase like "Z guesses that Y believes that X believes that W" without breaking down in tiers, so I had to skip over that.

Then you say : "You believe Sanger is a hypocrite, no?

The exact answer would be : "It's not really the issue, but I haven't decided yet."

I could give the guy the benefit of the doubt and say "No", but the mere words "Yes" and "No" are cheap if you aren't betting money, or a chunk of your time and energy on them, so it would be disingenuous to pretend that just saying "No" is a pronouncement of any great moment.

The reason why none of this is the issue is that none of it has any impact on the fact that there is an evident lack of consistency between words written and actions taken. And that is the fact that calls for a moment of pause and reflection.

Jonny

Sure. It makes no difference. Please know, however, that if you are itching to give me grammar lessons on splitting infinitives you should start a new thread.

Jonny, it is clear as day that you believe Citizendium is "written by committee" and, based on your interpretation of Sanger's "strong collaboration" jargon, you believe he is being hypocritical (see the definition of hypocrite if you have to).



I assure you, Sanger does not believe he is being hypocritical. He believes you have misinterpreted what he said about "strong collaboration," and he can see your agenda, which is that you believe the works of Citizendium are/will be "written by commitee". That is why he rejected your request for his comment. You holding his feet to the fire and demanding he prove himself a hypocrite based on your interpretation of what he said is not going to get the response that you would like.

Ben,

I have to run off right now, so I will have to pick this up later, but I think that we should establish something like a minimal basis for rational discussion, or else just drop it altogether.

When I say, "I don't know enough about S to call S a P", then I mean that I don't know enough about S to call S a P.

You are perfectly free to believe that I am deluded, or hypocritical, or lying, or whatever.

But I don't really have anything new to say on the subject of your question at this time.

Jonny

I said: "Jonny, it is clear as day that you believe Citizendium is 'written by committee'"

You said: "I don't really have anything new to say on the subject of your question at this time."

Giving me a "no comment" response is kind of ironic, isn't it?

----

And as for "You are perfectly free to believe that I am deluded, or hypocritical, or lying, or whatever."

Of course I am.

You are also free to call Sanger a hypocrite, or deluded, or lying or whatever. I won't judge you for it, or argue against it, because I don't care about Sanger and don't know hardly anything about Sanger or Citizendium.

I do, however, care about manipulators and bullies and trolls giving the members of this board a bad name, especially when they write as condescendingly and passive-aggressively as you do. Because that's what the admins on Wikipedia do.

I appreciate your being more frosty about all this, Ben. Also, it would be good if we better understood Poetlister's rather idiosyncratic grammatical preferences... Still, I have to ask...

I'm 100 percent sure you mean that sincerely, of course, but how could we have more of a bad name than we have already? I mean, sure, we're on the side of truth and accuracy and opinion diversity and an end to the rampant growth of McWestern cultural hegemony, not to mention our (apparently) prominent role in the financial world's ongoing anti-shorting campaign. But just being among the good guys is no guarantee of due credit... so who are we trying to impress here?

I'm completely serious about this - if there's a general groundswell of opinion that we should "clean up our act" and try to become more respectable, then we should all discuss that at some point, maybe have a poll, and so on. I'm not against the idea in principle, but personally I'd be against the idea of compromising on any really substantive issue just to get off of WP's blacklist, or whatever else they seem to think they're holding over our heads these days.

{Ephemeral Remarks Elided By Author (EREBA)}

Jonny

Watch me shed a tear for you.

Let's hope I never hear you talk about "how Citizendium is written by a commitee."

I know that is what you think and I know that you're going to talk and complain about it in some other thread sometime soon.

(You can always prove me wrong by not bringing "how Citizendium is written by a commitee" up again.)