David Gerard It surprises me when our odder critics claim Wikipedia is the personality cult of Jimbo Wales. I really can't imagine L. Ron Hubbard putting up with the crap Jimbo does ...
Hey, I resemble that remark! :-)
More seriously, the problem in your statement above is that there are different types of personality cults. Apocalyptic cults which commit mass suicide get a huge amount of publicity. But for obvious reasons, they tend to be self-limiting. Despite jocular references to "drinking the Kool-Aid", Wikipedia is NOT a doomsday type of cult. It's more of "New Age" cult. They're different.
But being any sort of cult leader is no easy task. You can't just sit back and expect the followers to come to you. They've got to be recruited, and that's a tough job. Then the followers need to be retained, as at least some of them are going to get unhappy with selling flowers at the airport or working in the fields all day (or reverting vandals), and want to leave. Cults tend to use both physical and psychological means of control, though most people just hear about the lurid physical elements and don't consider the manipulative psychological elements.
Wikipedia is really interesting in a way, since it doesn't have any physical aspect, so it has to rely entirely on psychological aspects. Which, in fact, means the leader putting up with a lot of crap.
on 3/24/07 1:35 PM, Seth Finkelstein at sethf@sethf.com wrote:
Wikipedia is really interesting in a way, since it doesn't have any physical aspect, so it has to rely entirely on psychological aspects. Which, in fact, means the leader putting up with a lot of crap.
OK, Seth, I will (predictably) bite :-) - what psychological aspects are you speaking of?
Marc
Marc Riddell OK, Seth, I will (predictably) bite :-) - what psychological aspects are you speaking of?
Well, I didn't join this list to be a troll, and I suspect if I go into detail, many members won't take it kindly. I also don't want to deal with The Attack Of The Strawmen, where every statement has to be guarded against being made a strawman because someone will feel they've scored a big victory by knocking that down.
Note something like Wikipedia essentially requires someone high-up to be Chief Crap-Taker, otherwise it'll rip itself apart in the factionalism that comes from having a lot of worshipful people who will eventually argue vociferously over the correct way to practice the faith.
Look at it this way: Why *does* someone join a cult? And more importantly, why do they *stay*, doing free labor? Stark coercion, of the sort if-you-leave-we'll-hunt-you-down-and-kill-you, is extraordinarily rare. Much of the process is about manipulating a psychological need. Transcendent purpose, internal status, external dangers - these are all deep human triggers.
The "Essjay" story has it all on display, if anyone doubts the existence of such factors.
On 3/24/07, Seth Finkelstein sethf@sethf.com wrote:
Look at it this way: Why *does* someone join a cult? And moreimportantly, why do they *stay*, doing free labor? Stark coercion, of the sort if-you-leave-we'll-hunt-you-down-and-kill-you, is extraordinarily rare. Much of the process is about manipulating a psychological need. Transcendent purpose, internal status, external dangers - these are all deep human triggers.
The thing about "manipulating psychological need" might simply boil down to saying "come and write for us" (an honest invitation) and "your work might help a lot of people" (a real reward). To call it "manipulation," or to argue that there's a cult-like aspect, is to add an additional factor, namely that there's something untoward about it. So what is the untoward thing, in your view?
Sarah
"Slim Virgin" So what is the untoward thing, in your view?
Briefly, the illusion of prestige comparable to an academic.
Seth Finkelstein I also don't want to deal with The Attack Of The Strawmen
David Gerard As I understand from your Guardian piece, your theory is more or less (and correct me word by word as needed): Wikipedia is a cult of ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Jimbo's personality, where he gets everyone to write stuff for him for free, so that he can profit from it using Wikia.
Sigh. I rest my case :-(.
David, if you take a swipe that arguably includes me, I think it's fair to do a "Marshall McLuhan right here" bit, and correct the ideas. That is, the range of cults encompasses far, far, more than people who end up in the woods setting themselves on fire. Moreover, "New Age" groups can be particularly upbeat in certain ways. Cults typically have love in them as well as hate.
But I'm sensitive to the fact that it's not really laudable for an outsider to go to a project list and criticize the ideology of the project. So I'm trying to walk a line there.
You're going to declare yourself the winner anyway, so I might as well not waste any time over it.
On 3/24/07, Seth Finkelstein sethf@sethf.com wrote:
"Slim Virgin" So what is the untoward thing, in your view?
Briefly, the illusion of prestige comparable to an academic.
It's not invariably an illusion, though. Anyone who wants to can pick a quiet corner of Wikipedia and write extremely good articles using the best scholarly sources. You can do it using your real name and cite yourself elsewhere, or at least claim the credit on your résumé or wherever. We're not allowed to publish original work, but most academics don't do that most of the time anyway.
I don't mean to be dismissive of your argument, which I find very interesting, but you haven't managed to put your finger on what the cult-like thing comes from. It can't simply be a group of people huddled around a charismatic leader, because if you go to any major corporation, any political party, any monarchy, you'll find courtiers doing the bidding of (or plotting against) the king, and we don't call them cults. There's also no element of coercion to stay on Wikpedia. Quite the reverse: anyone who wants to leave can just turn off the computer. There may be an addiction, but that's a personal thing that's not obviously related to the group dynamics.
You can argue that it's irrational for people to want to work without payment for the benefit of others, and that you wouldn't do it yourself, and you can be suspicious of anyone who does. But being irrational isn't enough to brand us a cult either.
To support the cult hypothesis, there would have to be something illegitimate, untoward, nasty, inappropriate, dishonest, corrupt, harmful to the individual -- where what we're doing isn't *really* what we're doing, or something like that -- and it's not clear to me what that thing would be.
Sarah
Seth Finkelstein wrote:
"Slim Virgin" So what is the untoward thing, in your view?
Briefly, the illusion of prestige comparable to an academic.
I have never seen that suggested that is a big benefit. When I click the edit link, I don't see breathless promises about vast prestige. I see prosaic warnings that I should write only attributable content, and that I lose all control over whatever I submit.
When I talk with people about why they edit Wikipedia, the answer I generally get is that it's already something they use, and when they saw something that needed fixing, they just fixed it. I've never heard anybody describe it in terms like yours. Even among the most energetic participants, the prestige I see being sought is among the Wikipedia community. Academic prestige is something academics get from society at large, whereas Wikipedia's prestige is much more akin to the kind of thing you see on any other hobbyist internet community. WOW players may be very excited that you've made it to level eleventy-seven, but in the wider world, nobody cares.
William
On 25/03/07, Seth Finkelstein sethf@sethf.com wrote:
David Gerard
As I understand from your Guardian piece, your theory is more or less (and correct me word by word as needed): Wikipedia is a cult of ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Jimbo's personality, where he gets everyone to write stuff for him for free, so that he can profit from it using Wikia.
Sigh. I rest my case :-(. David, if you take a swipe that arguably includes me, I thinkit's fair to do a "Marshall McLuhan right here" bit, and correct the ideas. That is, the range of cults encompasses far, far, more than people who end up in the woods setting themselves on fire. Moreover, "New Age" groups can be particularly upbeat in certain ways. Cults typically have love in them as well as hate.
It's not clear that you're actually saying anything beyond making a big splashy accusation - "Wikipedia is a personality cult!" - and then weaseling out of substantiating that you're saying anything meaningful in any way whatsoever.
Here's the Guardian article where you conflate Wikia and Wikipedia and assume (as far as I can tell) more or less what I stated:
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2028328,00.html
You're going to declare yourself the winner anyway, so Imight as well not waste any time over it.
It seems more like you're declaring yourself the loser. That is, you won't put up. But I am sure you won't shut up either, as long as you can keep trolling in other venues where people won't be so rude as to go "what on earth?" and ask you such unreasonable things as to substantiate one dot of what you're saying beyond the initial splashy headline accusation.
- d.
On 24/03/07, Seth Finkelstein sethf@sethf.com wrote:
Well, I didn't join this list to be a troll, and I suspect ifI go into detail, many members won't take it kindly. I also don't want to deal with The Attack Of The Strawmen, where every statement has to be guarded against being made a strawman because someone will feel they've scored a big victory by knocking that down.
i.e., you'll make a vague accusation, but getting you to actually substantiate it is like pulling teeth.
As I understand from your Guardian piece, your theory is more or less (and correct me word by word as needed): Wikipedia is a cult of Jimbo's personality, where he gets everyone to write stuff for him for free, so that he can profit from it using Wikia. Please correct and/or expand as needed; alternately, actually flesh out your theory from the one-line synopsis.
- d.
Seth Finkelstein wrote:
Look at it this way: Why *does* someone join a cult? And more importantly, why do they *stay*, doing free labor? Stark coercion, of the sort if-you-leave-we'll-hunt-you-down-and-kill-you, is extraordinarily rare. Much of the process is about manipulating a psychological need. Transcendent purpose, internal status, external dangers - these are all deep human triggers.
Interesting notion, and one I hadn't considered.
Measuring Wikipedia against a couple of cult evaluation frameworks, I don't think Wikipedia scores very highly:
http://www.neopagan.net/ABCDEF.html http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm
So I'm going to take your notions more as an interesting metaphor than a serious criticism.
William
on 3/24/07 6:05 PM, Seth Finkelstein at sethf@sethf.com wrote:
Well, I didn't join this list to be a troll, and I suspect if I go into detail, many members won't take it kindly. I also don't want to deal with The Attack Of The Strawmen, where every statement has to be guarded against being made a strawman because someone will feel they've scored a big victory by knocking that down.
As for being a troll: I believe it all has to to with your intent. If your intent is to harm, then you could be rightfully defined as a troll, and should stay the hell away. But, if your intent is to state what you believe to be truth, then do it - openly and honestly. It may not always be well received, and you may even be called many things in the process (hell, over the years I've been called things I had to look up!) - but a name doesn't define you - unless it agrees with your own definition - or, you haven't, as yet, defined yourself.
Look at it this way: Why *does* someone join a cult? And more importantly, why do they *stay*, doing free labor? Stark coercion, of the sort if-you-leave-we'll-hunt-you-down-and-kill-you, is extraordinarily rare. Much of the process is about manipulating a psychological need. Transcendent purpose, internal status, external dangers - these are all deep human triggers.
First of all, does anyone really "join" a cult (which, in fact, is a pejorative term)? Do they consciously say, "That looks like a cult I want to be a part of?" Or, do they choose to become a part of a group of people with similar beliefs? Yes, history is replete with instances of harm and exploitation of persons persuaded (mostly out of fear) to join groups or movements. In fact, my belief is the only reason most organized religions are not called cults is centuries of well-schooled, well-financed public relations. The one word that seems to be subliminal in your statement is "exploitation". Do you really believe the WP Community members are being exploited? Personally, that's a real stretch for me.
As for characterizing something as a "cult"; my thinking is that if someone agrees with the beliefs of a group, and are welcomed in as a part of it, they refer to it as a group - if not, they call it a cult.
Marc Riddell
As for characterizing something as a "cult"; my thinking is that if someone agrees with the beliefs of a group, and are welcomed in as a part of it, they refer to it as a group - if not, they call it a cult.
Marc Riddell
No, that is a cult: if you agree with the benefits and are welcomed in--but it doesn't have to be a cult, it could be Toastmasters or Alcoholics Anonymous, or Forest Ridge. Or you could be welcomed into the cult in order to force you to agree with the benefits. What's not a cult is if you disagree with how the thing is run and are still welcomed in as a part of it and allowed to continue to disagree. In spite of my anti-admin comments, I'm absolutely in no danger of being kicked off of Wikipedia for them, even by the Wikipedia-admins-are-British-19th-c.-aristocrats-who-can-do-no-wrong-hang-the-butler-instead-so-the-aristocrat's-bloody-hands-aren't-hurt-with-the-chains types. Personality cults allow for no dissent or negative comments on the leadership. No matter what Jimbo says, there are negative comments.
There are other don't-stuff-beans-up-your-nose obvious differences.
KP
On 24/03/07, Seth Finkelstein sethf@sethf.com wrote:
And more importantly, why do they *stay*, doing free labor? Stark coercion, of the sort if-you-leave-we'll-hunt-you-down-and-kill-you, is extraordinarily rare. Much of the process is about manipulating a psychological need. Transcendent purpose, internal status, external dangers - these are all deep human triggers.
--
Seth Finkelstein
To be honest, my own opinion is that a lot of people are just addicted to Wikipedia and "wiki-fiddling". I'm a former addict myself. I genuinely got hooked adding content on Irish-related topics, because it was information I knew about and I was happy increasing the country's profile on Wikipedia.
However, now looking at it objectively after essentially quitting for several months, and then coming back as a casual editor, there is no way I can justify spending my time on Wikipedia rather than putting it to better use (even if just relaxing in order to concentrate on my studies better the next day)!
I have serious issues too with licencing your content free of charge, I do not think this will in the long run be good for anyone. I'm happier having a non-profit organisation pursue it, but it is worrying in that it means people are less careful about letting other organisations make profit from one's work (with one seeing any payback). Citizen journalism is an example; we will just end up without professionals, and the really proficient people won't be able to make money from their skills.
Mind you, if there was even a normal form of author attribution (not just page history) that would be a start!
Zoney
On 27/03/07, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
I have serious issues too with licencing your content free of charge, I do not think this will in the long run be good for anyone. I'm happier having a non-profit organisation pursue it, but it is worrying in that it means people are less careful about letting other organisations make profit from one's work (with one seeing any payback). Citizen journalism is an example; we will just end up without professionals, and the really proficient people won't be able to make money from their skills.
Other organisations would find a way to make profit from one's work whether one charges for it or not. Adding more layers of cost doesn't benefit the end-user and doesn't promote experimental and varied reuse (which, in turn, increases the usefulness of the content).
Marc Riddell wrote:
Wikipedia is really interesting in a way, since it doesn't have any physical aspect, so it has to rely entirely on psychological aspects. Which, in fact, means the leader putting up with a lot of crap.
OK, Seth, I will (predictably) bite :-) - what psychological aspects are you speaking of?
Oh, he is talking about how I manipulate and control people in the cult through an environment of... well, it isn't intimidation and fear I think we all agree... it's manipulation and control through... uh... being mostly friendly and trying to see the best in everyone, with some failures from time to time, and a willingness to apologize for that, and encouraging other people to do the same, as best as we can, because we are here to try to do something we think is useful and good.
Dastardly, dastardly. :)
Seriously, the whole "personality cult" thing loses all meaning if it automatically applies to anyone who has successfully led anything. Surely there must be some sort of leadership which involves something other than encouraging "cult" behaviors.
--Jimbo
On 3/25/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Seriously, the whole "personality cult" thing loses all meaning if it automatically applies to anyone who has successfully led anything. Surely there must be some sort of leadership which involves something other than encouraging "cult" behaviors.
Yeah. I could have bought the "personality cult" thing if Wikipedia was like 100 people. But at the size we are, it's grasping at straws.
Steve
on 3/25/07 6:01 AM, Jimmy Wales at jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Surely there must be some sort of leadership which involves something other than encouraging "cult" behaviors.
Yes. Leadership motivated only by a sincere belief in the validity of the cause. If a person believes they need to lead with fear and intimidation, they can't have much faith in the substance of the cause. The cause, alone, should motivate.
Marc
Jimmy Wales Oh, he is talking about how I manipulate and control people in the cult through an environment of... well, it isn't intimidation and fear I think we all agree... it's manipulation and control through... uh... being mostly friendly and trying to see the best in everyone, ...
"It's called a confidence game. Why? Because you give me your confidence? No. Because I give you mine." -- _House Of Cards_
[This quote is meant to illustrate manipulation via positive versus negative emotion, not to say Wikipedia is _per se_ a confidence game.] [This is why this discussion can be overly tedious, every major point has to be carefully protected against tendentious reading]
Strawman #1 in this discussion, repeated several times now:
1) Assume all cults work only by hate and fear 2) 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
on 3/25/07 12:11 PM, Seth Finkelstein at sethf@sethf.com wrote:
Jimmy Wales Oh, he is talking about how I manipulate and control people in the cult through an environment of... well, it isn't intimidation and fear I think we all agree... it's manipulation and control through... uh... being mostly friendly and trying to see the best in everyone, ...
"It's called a confidence game. Why? Because you give me your confidence? No. Because I give you mine." -- _House Of Cards_
[This quote is meant to illustrate manipulation via positive versus negative emotion, not to say Wikipedia is _per se_ a confidence game.] [This is why this discussion can be overly tedious, every major point has to be carefully protected against tendentious reading]
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
I guess I came late to the party, or haven't been paying attention, or - something. What is you basic beef, Seth?
Marc Riddell
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 13:28:36 -0400 In-Reply-To: C22C1FD3.2697%michaeldavid86@comcast.net (Marc Riddell's message of "Sun, 25 Mar 2007 12:47:15 -0400") Message-ID: 867it5b5bv.fsf@elan.rh.rit.edu User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/22.0.95 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed --text follows this line-- Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net writes:
on 3/25/07 12:11 PM, Seth Finkelstein at sethf@sethf.com wrote:
Jimmy Wales Oh, he is talking about how I manipulate and control people in
the cult
through an environment of... well, it isn't intimidation and
fear I
think we all agree... it's manipulation and control
through... uh...
being mostly friendly and trying to see the best in everyone,
...
"It's called a confidence game. Why? Because you give me your confidence? No. Because I give you mine." -- _House Of Cards_
[This quote is meant to illustrate manipulation via positive
versus
negative emotion, not to say Wikipedia is _per se_ a confidence
game.]
[This is why this discussion can be overly tedious, every major
point
has to be carefully protected against tendentious reading]
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
I guess I came late to the party, or haven't been paying
attention, or -
something. What is you basic beef, Seth?
Marc Riddell
That there's an article on him ([[Seth Finkelstein]]). I think he's also trying to follow up on Jaron Lanier's 'Wikipedia Is Communism^WDigital Maoism' thesis, particularly the personality cult accusation part.
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 13:36:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: 20070325161135.GA24971@sethf.com (Seth Finkelstein's message of "Sun, 25 Mar 2007 12:11:35 -0400") Message-ID: 861wjdb4z0.fsf_-_@elan.rh.rit.edu User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/22.0.95 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed --text follows this line-- Seth Finkelstein sethf@sethf.com writes:
Jimmy Wales Oh, he is talking about how I manipulate and control people in
the cult
through an environment of... well, it isn't intimidation and
fear I
think we all agree... it's manipulation and control
through... uh...
being mostly friendly and trying to see the best in everyone,
...
"It's called a confidence game. Why? Because you give me your confidence? No. Because I give you mine." -- _House Of Cards_
[This quote is meant to illustrate manipulation via positive
versus
negative emotion, not to say Wikipedia is _per se_ a confidence
game.]
[This is why this discussion can be overly tedious, every major
point
has to be carefully protected against tendentious reading]
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
-- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer
I have to agree with Gerard here: I'm not seeing much of substance in your emails except a vacuously expansive definition of cults. In what way does Wikipedia differ from any large-scale volunteer charitable organization with even a hint of an ideological motivation?
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
Marc Riddell I guess I came late to the party, or haven't been paying attention, or
- something. What is you basic beef, Seth?
Do you mean the specific or the general? The specific was:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/066381.html
"David, if you take a swipe that arguably includes me, I think it's fair to do a "Marshall McLuhan right here" bit, and correct the ideas."
Which was in reply to:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/066339.html "It surprises me when our odder critics claim Wikipedia is the personality cult of Jimbo Wales. I really can't imagine L. Ron Hubbard putting up with the crap Jimbo does ..."
Note I was *not* the person who introduced the word "cult" into the thread. I did change the subject line then to indicate a subthread, but that was in *response*, not an original assertion.
I was responding to a mischaracterization of critic's points about Wikipedia and cults. The strawman is that cults are only apocalyptic and doomsday, hate and fear. That's false. Transcendent purpose, internal status, love and belonging, are all possible aspects of a cult. Cult leaders sometimes *do* take lots of crap. (starting a cult can entail playing father-figure to a bunch of complaining dysfunctional neurotics - that can't be fun!)
Look at *how* *many* *times* I've had to repeat that little point, which should be utterly straightforward, and how it was immediately met with a platoon of strawman in the above. Can you see why I might honestly not want to spend all day in a flame-war writing messages "I didn't say that, I didn't mean that, that's not so ..."?
I have many general concerns about Wikipedia, relating to everything from my criticism of digital sharecropping to my belief that popularity data-mining businesses are not a good model for civic society. However, they're beyond the scope of this message.
Gwern I think he's also trying to follow up on Jaron Lanier's 'Wikipedia Is Communism^WDigital Maoism' thesis, particularly the personality cult accusation part.
For the record, I think Lanier's thesis is problematically phrased, though my thoughts have some similarity to his.
http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/001083.html
"The problem is that we don't have a good rhetorical shorthand for "negative effects of a communal activity", so it tends to come out as But-That's-Communism. I try to address this by drawing analogies to multi-level marketing, pyramid schemes, lotteries (which note are capitalism). But that has its own rhetorical downside for harshness."
Note the "personality" aspect is just one element, not a be-all and end-all.
[reordered] > In what way does Wikipedia differ from any large-scale volunteer
charitable organization with even a hint of an ideological motivation?
It's variable, not binary. Wikipedia is by no means on the most extreme end of the scale. But it's also further along than might be comfortable.
I have to agree with Gerard here: I'm not seeing much of substance in your emails except a vacuously expansive definition of cults.
I have conceded. Gerard has found me out. Can't get anything past him. I am *not* going to do a detailed elaboration here of "Why I Think Wikipedia Is A Cult", in 25,000 words or more. It wouldn't do anyone any good.
On 26/03/07, Seth Finkelstein sethf@sethf.com wrote:
Do you mean the specific or the general? The specific was:http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/066381.html "David, if you take a swipe that arguably includes me, I think it's fair to do a "Marshall McLuhan right here" bit, and correct the ideas." Which was in reply to: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/066339.html "It surprises me when our odder critics claim Wikipedia is the personality cult of Jimbo Wales. I really can't imagine L. Ron Hubbard putting up with the crap Jimbo does ..." Note I was *not* the person who introduced the word "cult" into the thread. I did change the subject line then to indicate a subthread, but that was in *response*, not an original assertion.
Uh, I wasn't even thinking of you. I was thinking in fact of Wikitruth et al.
You then decided it was about you, dived in, seemed to claim it and now say that you didn't do any of that. Oookay ...
I have conceded. Gerard has found me out. Can't get anythingpast him. I am *not* going to do a detailed elaboration here of "Why I Think Wikipedia Is A Cult", in 25,000 words or more. It wouldn't do anyone any good.
Nevertheless, you go for the headline-grabbing accusation, without actually showing a shred of evidence that you're using the word "cult" in a way that any other person purportedly speaking the English language is.
- d.
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
Wikipedia is really interesting in a way, since it doesn't have any physical aspect, so it has to rely entirely on psychological aspects. Which, in fact, means the leader putting up with a lot of crap.
OK, Seth, I will (predictably) bite :-) - what psychological aspects are you speaking of?
Seriously, the whole "personality cult" thing loses all meaning if it automatically applies to anyone who has successfully led anything. Surely there must be some sort of leadership which involves something other than encouraging "cult" behaviors.
Personality cults don't need the collaboration of their object. The idolatry can be completely gratuitous.
Jesus and Mohammed have each had over a billion recruited into their cults, and they are no longer in a position to do anything about it.
Ec
On 25/03/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Jesus and Mohammed have each had over a billion recruited into their cults, and they are no longer in a position to do anything about it.
Can people kindly satisfy themselves by inviting flame wars about religion somewhere else than on this list, please? Thanks.
On 3/25/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Seriously, the whole "personality cult" thing loses all meaning if it automatically applies to anyone who has successfully led anything. Surely there must be some sort of leadership which involves something other than encouraging "cult" behaviors.
Your tendency to rewrite history to suit your own purpose is certainly a factor against you. Your previous use of Wikimedia funds to travel around the world certainly didn't score a plus for you. And your current practice of profiting off of Wikia while still maintaining your positions of power within Wikipedia is questionable at best.
That said, if I understand the term correctly personality cults are generally much more blatant than this, and as such I don't think "personality cult" an appropriate term.
Anthony