In a message dated 5/8/2008 5:47:17 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, anirudhsbh@gmail.com writes:
*To say that "Ayn gave the impression that a work created by committee would never achieve any degree of excellence" is simply untrue. It was her belief that when man was driven by rational self-interest towards achieving his end. For that purpose, he could function within a committee or an organization as efficiently as an individual would have. One of the features of strong capitalist societies are the huge multinational and transnational corporations, which are more effective and efficient in their zeal to achieve excellence driven by free competition in free markets.>> -------------------- But that isn't a counter argument. The reason is because, even in that multi-national corporation, if *you* are allowed to do your own work, without undue influence (micro-managing) then you can still produce excellence. However, if your work is developed by committee, where your best ideas are watered down and changed to the point where they don't resemble what you had in mind whatsoever, that is the thing that Ayn was against.
I have worked for companies where I was allowed to create excellent computer programs that were really years ahead of our competitors. And I've worked for companies where I was not. In order for me to achieve excellence, I require the looser management style that Ayn would probably approve.
Will Johnson **************AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all other Holiday needs. Search Now. (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212792382x1200798498/aol?redir=http... -aol-search/?ncid=emlcntussear00000001)
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 5:19 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
<snip>
I have worked for companies where I was allowed to create excellent computer programs that were really years ahead of our competitors. And I've worked for companies where I was not. In order for me to achieve excellence, I require the looser management style that Ayn would probably approve.
So how what would be the equivalent "loose management style" on Wikipedia? Or turning it around, what are the processes on Wikipedia that inhibit excellence and promote safe mediocrity?
Carcharoth
2008/11/11 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 5:19 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
I have worked for companies where I was allowed to create excellent computer programs that were really years ahead of our competitors. And I've worked for companies where I was not. In order for me to achieve excellence, I require the looser management style that Ayn would probably approve.
So how what would be the equivalent "loose management style" on Wikipedia? Or turning it around, what are the processes on Wikipedia that inhibit excellence and promote safe mediocrity?
I'm trying to think of which ones don't.
- d.
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 5:19 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
<snip>
I have worked for companies where I was allowed to create excellent computer programs that were really years ahead of our competitors. And I've worked for companies where I was not. In order for me to achieve excellence, I require the looser management style that Ayn would probably approve.
So how what would be the equivalent "loose management style" on Wikipedia? Or turning it around, what are the processes on Wikipedia that inhibit excellence and promote safe mediocrity?
Carcharoth
Insistance on content which consists of the canon of accepted knowledge. While we almost sounded the alarm about the subprime mortgage we did not; we just repeated the information that was put forth by "reliable sources" that property values always rise.
Fred
Or turning it around, what are the processes on Wikipedia that inhibit excellence and promote safe mediocrity?
Insistance on content which consists of the canon of accepted knowledge. While we almost sounded the alarm about the subprime mortgage we did not; we just repeated the information that was put forth by "reliable sources" that property values always rise.
Exactly. Two processes that inhibit excellence are NPOV and NOR. Of course, these are in place because they are necessary to achieve "anyone can edit". I don't know how Ayn Rand thought about the creation of works by committee, but it seems pretty clear that "anyone can edit" directly leads to mediocrity.
Interestingly, I found a comment by Erik Moeller on this topic that was made in 2004. The comment was over a statement made by someone else that "Great brilliant works are built by individuals. Groups of people can only create average works."
He ended his post with this comment: "We don't try to trick people. We are all seekers of truth, and we are all united behind that altruistic goal of helping one another to find it. And that, I believe, is true brilliance."
I'm 100% sure that Rand wouldn't have condoned *that* statement. I don't know if Erik still considers himself an altruist, but his efforts in trying to relicense contributions, without the permission of authors, in order to lessen the attribution requirements and serve the greater good, certainly are the work of one.
2008/11/11 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
I'm 100% sure that Rand wouldn't have condoned *that* statement. I don't know if Erik still considers himself an altruist, but his efforts in trying to relicense contributions, without the permission of authors,
The permission is the "or later". Please stop making such clearly false claims.
- d.
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 5:25 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/11/11 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
I'm 100% sure that Rand wouldn't have condoned *that* statement. I don't know if Erik still considers himself an altruist, but his efforts in
trying
to relicense contributions, without the permission of authors,
The permission is the "or later". Please stop making such clearly false claims.
Put it in the FAQ. I'm not arguing this with you, in a forum you control.
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:19 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 5/8/2008 5:47:17 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, anirudhsbh@gmail.com writes:
*To say that "Ayn gave the impression that a work created by committee would never achieve any degree of excellence" is simply untrue. It was her belief that when man was driven by rational self-interest towards achieving his end. For that purpose, he could function within a committee or an organization as efficiently as an individual would have. One of the features of strong capitalist societies are the huge multinational and transnational corporations, which are more effective and efficient in their zeal to achieve excellence driven by free competition in free markets.>>
But that isn't a counter argument. The reason is because, even in that multi-national corporation, if *you* are allowed to do your own work, without undue influence (micro-managing) then you can still produce excellence. However, if your work is developed by committee, where your best ideas are watered down and changed to the point where they don't resemble what you had in mind whatsoever, that is the thing that Ayn was against.
I have worked for companies where I was allowed to create excellent computer programs that were really years ahead of our competitors. And I've worked for companies where I was not. In order for me to achieve excellence, I require the looser management style that Ayn would probably approve.
The more I learn about Objectivism, the more I think that it is a ridiculous question to even be asking if Rand would approve of Wikipedia. John Galt might as well have been talking about Wikipedia (especially in light of its recent plans to relicense the work of its contributors to eliminate those pesky attribution requirements) when he said: "In order to deprive us of honor that you may then deprive us our wealth, you have always regarded us as slaves who deserve no moral recognition. You praise any venture that claims to be non-profit, and damn the men who made the profits that make the venture possible. You regard as in the public interest any projects serving those who do not pay. It is not in the public interest to provide any services to those who do the paying."
Jimbo may not have intended for the Wikimedia Foundation to be overtaken by altruists, but it certainly has.
On 11/11/08, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 5/8/2008 5:47:17 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, anirudhsbh@gmail.com writes:
<snip/>
If you *really* like bumping old threads you might be interested in some ones which went completely dead the moment I asked a question. :-)
—C.W.
On 11/11/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
I have worked for companies where I was allowed to create excellent computer programs that were really years ahead of our competitors. And I've worked for companies where I was not. In order for me to achieve excellence, I require the looser management style that Ayn would probably approve.
Ayn Rand claimed to be a philosopher, assuming this to be accurate I note in passing that googling on "successes of philosophy" currently gives me just 5 hits on the entire web.
Will Johnson
From: "Ian Woollard" ian.woollard@gmail.com: (...)
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be much better.
(...)
Something is wrong with everything. If something appears perfect on the surface, that is because you haven't tried to abuse it. We do live in a perfectly imperfect world, where numbers or equations describe some things perfectly, and where it is extremely hard to find flaws in some things. Those same pieces of math, strategically distorted, are even more dangerous than commonplace mediocrity. It's all good. Nothing dies. Politicians never lie.