---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Anthony wikimail@inbox.org Date: Wed, May 7, 2008 at 6:45 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Ayn Rand and Wikipedia To: Anirudh Bhati anirudhsbh@gmail.com

First of all, thanks for this post. I think you're right on in pointing out one pitfall many people fall into with Wikipedia. It's not altruism, but escapism (isn't it also hedonism?).

I do think to some extent that altruism and hedonism go hand in hand, though. Often the reason Wikipedia is fun, the reason we seek praise, is because we think it's worth it to sacrifice our time and energies for others. Just look at some of the comments of the chair of the foundation board. She says the WMF is making her life miserable, yet she continues to volunteer for it every day (I do believe this will be her last term, but still, she was complaining about wanting to resign privately to me years ago). I think there's a lot of that that goes on at all levels of Wikipedia, and I think that's much more dangerous than contributing to Wikipedia because you enjoy it.

I also think that one *can* contribute rationally to Wikipedia because one enjoys it. Though I also think there's another even less dangerous way to contribute, and that's as a learning experience. A wiki is an interesting method of communication. I think it's possible to benefit from editing a Wikipedia article in the same way I can benefit from participating on a mailing list, or sending this email to you.

Now maybe this has nothing to do with Objectivism. I don't know that much about Objectivism with which to comment. I do plan on reading more about it, but I don't think I'm going to subscribe. I like the rational self-interest part, and I mostly like the capitalism part, but some other parts seem outdated and non-intuitive. Did Rand ever reconcile her so-called "Objectivist metaphysics" with modern physics? They seem to contradict one another.

"Jimmy Wales and I are indeed friends, i.e. I wasn't being sarcastic. However, that does not make me a fan of Wikipedia. I'd consider myself a lukewarm occasional user who wouldn't dream of contributing. I'm too selfish for that: I value my own words too highly to allow random morons to edit them at will." - Diana Hsieh

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 3:23 AM, Anirudh Bhati anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:

...

I think Wikipedia would be fairly well in line with Objectivism if it

wasn't for the constant begging for money. I believe Ayn Rand taught that not only should an Objectivist not engage in acts of altruism, but s/he should not encourage others to engage in acts of altruism either. I'd feel a lot more comfortable with Wikipedia if they'd just use banner ads like everyone else.

It was the act of altruism that Ayn Rand was against, not charity. On the other hand, she propounded that in a free world run by the sheer talent of the meritorious, the underdogs and the incapable would be supported by charities.

So the WMF is one of "the underdogs and the incapable"? Maybe I'm right that Rand would object to this system of funding, but for the wrong reasons.

However, I do find it hard to see how, at least in our unfree world run by thugs, donating money to Wikipedia is not an act of altruism for all but the most wealthy among us. If I give $100 to the WMF I necessarily have to give up something else, and in my opinion what I give up will *always* be worth more to me than it is worth to a non-profit organization. That is certainly true in the specific instance of the WMF - I look at the WMF's budget and it bears no resemblance to the way I'd spend the money. But I think there's more to it than that, and that non-profit organizations almost inevitably waste money.

Were my $100 to go directly to the underdogs and the incapable, I wouldn't be able to make the same argument, though I do still wonder how it is in my rational self-interest to give $100 to a stranger that I'm probably never going to meet again.

In an interview, her first appearance on television after the death of her husband, she was asked, "Why is altruism bad?" Her response was quick:

"Why

is suicide bad?"

I think I saw that interview on YouTube (was it the Donahue one?), and it probably inspired my response to the assertion that altruism doesn't exist because people always do what they *want* to do. My response was something to the effect of "What about an anorexic?" On the other hand, I either don't agree with or I don't understand her use of the term "evil" to describe altruism. The response to my comment about anorexics was that anorexics have a mental defect so they have no choice in the matter. My feeling is that anyone engaging in altruism has a mental defect to some extent or another. I wouldn't call the person performing altruism "evil", I'd call them "stupid", or maybe "sick".

On the other hand, I realize now that there is another, and maybe better, response to that claim: rational self-interest is not the same as hedonism.

Anthony