Jimmy Wales states that he is a great fan or even follower of Ayn Rand's philosophy.
What would Ayn Rand think about Wikipedia?
Will Johnson
**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 7:21 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Jimmy Wales states that he is a great fan or even follower of Ayn Rand's philosophy.
What would Ayn Rand think about Wikipedia?
Scary as it may sound, I actually thought about this question before.
Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, demands a clear, unbiased view of reality to make decisions. An encyclopedia with a NPOV would very well match that goal.
On the other hand, altruism (giving away things for free) is very much frowned upon, as it biases the "success metrics" where everyone has exactly what he worked for (please correct me if I got this wrong). That would seem to conflict with thousands of volunteers giving away their time and knowledge for free.
So, IMHO, Wikipedia itself, as an encyclopedia, should be well in line with her teachings, whereas the process that fuels it is not.
My 2c, Magnus
on 4/27/08 5:40 PM, Magnus Manske at magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 7:21 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Jimmy Wales states that he is a great fan or even follower of Ayn Rand's philosophy.
What would Ayn Rand think about Wikipedia?
Speaking of Ayn Rand & Wikipedia, this is a quote from her that could describe many a person's frustration writing in the Project:
"The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see."
Be healthy, all,
Marc
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 7:21 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Jimmy Wales states that he is a great fan or even follower of Ayn Rand's philosophy.
What would Ayn Rand think about Wikipedia?
Scary as it may sound, I actually thought about this question before.
Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, demands a clear, unbiased view of reality to make decisions. An encyclopedia with a NPOV would very well match that goal.
On the other hand, altruism (giving away things for free) is very much frowned upon, as it biases the "success metrics" where everyone has exactly what he worked for (please correct me if I got this wrong). That would seem to conflict with thousands of volunteers giving away their time and knowledge for free.
While some Wikipedians are engaging in acts of altruism when they contribute to Wikipedia, I don't think that's true of everyone. Playing the "write an encyclopedia game" can be fun.
Or for an appeal to authority: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1601491,00.html
"What drives people to contribute to Wikipedia? Altruism?" "No. It's realizing that doing intellectual things socially is a lot of fun—it makes sense. We don't plan on paying people, either, to contribute. People don't ask, 'Gosh, why are all these people playing basketball for fun? Some people get paid a lot of money to do that.'" - Jimmy Wales
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.
So, IMHO, Wikipedia itself, as an encyclopedia, should be well in line with her teachings, whereas the process that fuels it is not.
My 2c, Magnus
There are certainly some key individuals who "help" create Wikipedia and engage in altruism. They contribute not because they enjoy contributing but despite the fact that they don't enjoy it. But I would think the Objectivist position would be that these individuals aren't necessary, and in fact make the encyclopedia worse off. I'd say there is a strong argument for this, in that those who contribute to Wikipedia out of altruistic considerations tend to be the hardest ones to deal with when they go on crusades trying to "improve" things for the sake of others.
"Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one's own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value-and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes. Hence the appalling immorality, the chronic injustice, the grotesque double standards, the insoluble conflicts and contradictions that have characterized human relationships and human societies throughout history, under all the variants of the altruist ethics." - Ayn Rand
A lot of people I know on Wikipedia, including myself, contribute or contributed at a point of time, with the sole objective of enjoyment. Wikipedia is so addictive. When I compromised on my real-world commitments, those were not rational actions, but escapism, that which contradicts the very existentialist philosophy Ayn Rand expounds.
*Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, demands a clear, unbiased
view of reality to make decisions. An encyclopedia with a NPOV would very well match that goal.
*That is very true. What an encyclopedia needs is objective reporting of facts and viewpoints.
*On the other hand, altruism (giving away things for free) is very much
frowned upon, as it biases the "success metrics" where everyone has exactly what he worked for (please correct me if I got this wrong). That would seem to conflict with thousands of volunteers giving away their time and knowledge for free.
So, IMHO, Wikipedia itself, as an encyclopedia, should be well in line
with her teachings, whereas the process that fuels it is not.
*Wikipedia has a microcosmic structure. For long, this structure has sustained itself. We have contributors from different walks of life, classes and nationalities. But the question we must ask ourselves is whether these volunteers have _normal_ real lives? I would say no. Wikipedians are, on a general level, are intelligent and capable people. However, they are not very social. A large number of them lack requisite social skills for interaction in social groups. They are escapists too, they like to live Wikipedia rather than their real-lives because Wikipedia, they feel, is more rewarding. (So, it would make sense if we said praise is as good as a monetary incentive, as some of the recent studies have found outhttp://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080424/praise_study_080424/20080424?hub=Health. And there is no dearth of praise for good work on Wikipedia.)
This could also imply that Wikicontributors regularly choose instant-gratification rather than prolonged happiness in their real life.
*It is perhaps my own faulty perception that Ayn gave the impression that a
work created by committee would never achieve any degree of excellence.
*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.
*>Wikipedia itself, being an inanimate phenomenon, is not a moral agent. There is nothing moral or immoral about it.
What IS moral or immoral is a particular individual's contributing to
Wikipedia--and that depends on what his motive for contributing is.*
Wonderfully put, Kurt!
*"What drives people to contribute to Wikipedia? Altruism?" "No. It's
realizing that doing intellectual things socially is a lot of fun—it makes sense. We don't plan on paying people, either, to contribute. People don't ask, 'Gosh, why are all these people playing basketball for fun? Some people get paid a lot of money to do that.'" - Jimmy Wales*
That is a rather shallow view. It's fun, but sometimes it's just dangerous for your future. The dilemman in the mind of a righteous Wikipedian would be to strike a balance where work and fun becomes mutually inclusive. Every man, motivated by rational self-interest, would want a *quid pro quo*.
*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.
*"The word 'altruism' was coined in the early nineteenth century by the French philosopher Auguste Comte (who also invented the word 'sociology' ). For Comte, altruism is not simple benevolence or charity, but rather the moral and political obligation of the individual to sacrifice his own interests for the sake of a greater social good. It should be noted that Ayn Rand did not oppose helping others in need, provided such actions are voluntary. What she opposed was the use of coercion--that is, the initiation of physical force--in social relationships. The doctrine of altruism, in Rand's view, is evil partially because it serves to justify coercion, especially governmental coercion, in order to benefit some people at the expense of others." -- George H. Smith *
In an interview, her first appearance on television after the death of her husbandhttp://reasonmrsmith.wordpress.com/2008/02/10/ayn-rand-on-phil-donahue-you-must-watch-this/, she was asked, "Why is altruism bad?" Her response was quick: "Why is suicide bad?"
*Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice -- which means: self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction -- which means: the self as a standard of evil, the **selfless as the standard of the good. --Ayn Rand
"Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you **do or do **not have the right to exist **without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: **"No." Altruism says: **"Yes." ... --Ayn Rand
*Editing Wikipedia is little more than altruism and / or irrational, but instant gratification for some people. Strike a balance!
--Anirudh
[[User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington]]
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 3:33 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 7:21 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Jimmy Wales states that he is a great fan or even follower of Ayn
Rand's
philosophy.
What would Ayn Rand think about Wikipedia?
Scary as it may sound, I actually thought about this question before.
Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, demands a clear, unbiased view of reality to make decisions. An encyclopedia with a NPOV would very well match that goal.
On the other hand, altruism (giving away things for free) is very much frowned upon, as it biases the "success metrics" where everyone has exactly what he worked for (please correct me if I got this wrong). That would seem to conflict with thousands of volunteers giving away their time and knowledge for free.
While some Wikipedians are engaging in acts of altruism when they contribute to Wikipedia, I don't think that's true of everyone. Playing the "write an encyclopedia game" can be fun.
Or for an appeal to authority: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1601491,00.html
"What drives people to contribute to Wikipedia? Altruism?" "No. It's realizing that doing intellectual things socially is a lot of fun—it makes sense. We don't plan on paying people, either, to contribute. People don't ask, 'Gosh, why are all these people playing basketball for fun? Some people get paid a lot of money to do that.'" - Jimmy Wales
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.
So, IMHO, Wikipedia itself, as an encyclopedia, should be well in line with her teachings, whereas the process that fuels it is not.
My 2c, Magnus
There are certainly some key individuals who "help" create Wikipedia and engage in altruism. They contribute not because they enjoy contributing but despite the fact that they don't enjoy it. But I would think the Objectivist position would be that these individuals aren't necessary, and in fact make the encyclopedia worse off. I'd say there is a strong argument for this, in that those who contribute to Wikipedia out of altruistic considerations tend to be the hardest ones to deal with when they go on crusades trying to "improve" things for the sake of others.
"Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one's own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value-and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes. Hence the appalling immorality, the chronic injustice, the grotesque double standards, the insoluble conflicts and contradictions that have characterized human relationships and human societies throughout history, under all the variants of the altruist ethics." - Ayn Rand
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sunday 27 April 2008 16:40, Magnus Manske wrote:
On the other hand, altruism (giving away things for free)
Your understanding of what "altruism" is is wrong. It's too superficial.
An act is only altruistic if one's PRIMARY MOTIVATION in doing so is the benefit of others at net cost to himself.
Wikipedia itself, being an inanimate phenomenon, is not a moral agent. There is nothing moral or immoral about it.
What IS moral or immoral is a particular individual's contributing to Wikipedia--and that depends on what his motive for contributing is.