Seth Finkelstein wrote:
Strawman #1 in this discussion, repeated several times now:
- Assume all cults work only by hate and fear
- Assume Wikipedia is filled only with love and happiness
[Bang! Pow! Down goes the strawman!] 3) How silly it is for anyone to speak of the good Wikipedia like the bad cults
The way I figure it, either you have a sincere and well-considered point, or you're one of the many people with an irrational fixation on Wikipedia. Many of those obsessed seem to be irrationally positive, but there are some obsessed with the negatives. This list attracts an unfortunate number of both.
The suggestion that Wikipedia might be cult-like doesn't push the score either way; it's an interesting notion, and how Wikipedia really works is not yet well explained. But your unwillingness to describe your notion in detail loses you points. Your failure to answer reasonable criticisms directly or to come up with actual evidence loses you more. And your claim that politeness prevents you from engaging while you continue to repeat the loaded word "cult" makes you look, frankly, like someone more interested in causing disturbance than having an actual discussion.
At this point I would normally file you under "loon and/or troll" and move on to something more likely to be productive. However, you're a guy whose work I've respected in other contexts, so I'm not quite ready to flip the bozo bit on this thread. A few quick questions:
1. What do you mean by cult? And in particular, do you believe Wikipedia scores highly on either of those two cult evaluation scales I sent earlier? 2. Do you have any historical comparisons? The ones I've studied most are the new-age and Christian ones, so those would be the most helpful to me. 3. What evidence are you basing this on? Luckily, almost all of Wikipedia's communication is logged, so this should be an easy one compared with your average cult.
Thanks,
William