The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says:
"Popper holds [that] the open society can be brought about only if it is possible for the individual citizen to evaluate critically the consequences of the implementation of government policies, which can then be abandoned or modified in the light of such critical scrutiny - in such a society, the rights of the individual to criticise administrative policies will be formally safeguarded and upheld, undesirable policies will be eliminated in a manner analogous to the elimination of falsified scientific theories, and differences between people on social policy will be resolved by critical discussion and argument rather than by force."
I maintain that the Wikipedia community is Popper's sort of "open society" for the following reasons:
1. It is possible for the individual Wikipedian evaluate critically the consequences of the implementation of Wikipedia policies.
2. Wikipedia policies can be abandoned or modified in the light of such critical scrutiny.
3. The rights of individual Wikipedians to criticise administrative policies has consistently been upheld - not only on the mailing list but also on user pages and policy talk pages.
4. Differences between Wikipedians on social policy have almost always been resolved by critical discussion and argument rather than by force.
Perhaps the only element missing is the elimination of undesirable policies in a manner analogous to the elimination of falsified scientific theories, but if so four out of five is not bad!
Uncle Ed
Ed Poor wrote
I maintain that the Wikipedia community is Popper's sort of "open
society"
A dogmatic codger at the best of times, towards the end of his life Karl P. came up with the revelation that the most important thing in politics was to be able to sack your government.
Falsify that! With respect to WP, I mean.
Charles
--- "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
I maintain that the Wikipedia community is Popper's sort of "open society" for the following reasons:
There is a basic fact about Wikipedia's uniqueness that allows its developed philosophy to likewise be regarded as somewhat unique and altruistic. Anybody who really knows Wikipedia knows that its success is a validation of the open model. Hence there is some altruistic interest in continuing to keep things open open open. Hence, there is a natural clash between commonplace concepts of government--which tends to claim ownership of any elitist or goal-oriented movements toward improving content-- and idealism.
Because this is all electronics in the web aether, the drive to be egalitarian is naturally much stronger than it is in the meatspace context. Hence, I for one have always agreed with the application of altruistic concepts to Wikipedia, simply because human beings demand it. This is why, for example I dislike claims that sysops have a "janitorial role" (as opposed to a "shepherd" role) or that the Arbcom should hold to an impersonal and pragmatic tone, rather than to a principled and responsive one.
Anyway this meatspace debate between "do whats best" pragmatism and "do whats good" moralism is old enough in the real world--we Trekkies demand that wikipedia hold to its idealistic potential. I.e. it seems rather "unwiki" to supress principled appeals in favor of pragmatic ones--and no citatious "originalist" referentialism is suitable for either writing, nor editing, nor social engineering. It seems only natural that a truly open medium wants to grow more open, in a reflection of (what we loosely call) idealism. Granted there are government disagreements about how to get there...
Fuck it. Party on. SV
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com