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. -- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.com/ Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/ Interview: http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php

Briefly, the illusion of prestige comparable to an academic. 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. -- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.com/ Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/ Interview: http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php

Seth Finkelstein wrote: 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 24/03/07, Seth Finkelstein <sethf(a)sethf.com> wrote: 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.

on 3/24/07 6:05 PM, Seth Finkelstein at sethf(a)sethf.com wrote: 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. 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

On 24/03/07, Seth Finkelstein <sethf(a)sethf.com> wrote: -- 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 -- ~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...

Marc Riddell wrote: 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 6:01 AM, Jimmy Wales at jwales(a)wikia.com wrote: 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

on 3/25/07 12:11 PM, Seth Finkelstein at sethf(a)sethf.com wrote: 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 13:36:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070325161135.GA24971(a)sethf.com> (Seth Finkelstein's message of "Sun, 25 Mar 2007 12:11:35 -0400") Message-ID: <861wjdb4z0.fsf_-_(a)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(a)sethf.com> writes: the cult fear I through... uh... ... versus game.] point like the bad cults http://sethf.com/Infothought 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? -- Gwern Inquiring minds want to know.

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. 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 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 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. -- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.com/ Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/ Interview: http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php

Jimmy Wales wrote: 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 3/25/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: 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