--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor(a)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