When I think of wikipedia, somehow I'm reminded of the [[Milgram experiment]]--except the seats are really wired. Currently I would not recommend anyone join wikipedia, unless the person knows of some obscure Russian filmmaker to write about or some photographic technique which calls for dry unemotional writing. Something about the culture here is just *wrong*; it calls to people who itch to have a buzzer in hand, and those of us lucky enough not to be on the receiving end are still uncomfortable watching the spectacle.
Why are you here? Are any of you trying to change another person's opinion? If you are, you belong on Usenet, and best of luck.
kq
koyaanisqatsi@nupedia.com wrote:
When I think of wikipedia, somehow I'm reminded of the [[Milgram experiment]]--except the seats are really wired. Currently I would not recommend anyone join wikipedia, unless the person knows of some obscure Russian filmmaker to write about or some photographic technique which calls for dry unemotional writing. Something about the culture here is just *wrong*; it calls to people who itch to have a buzzer in hand, and those of us lucky enough not to be on the receiving end are still uncomfortable watching the spectacle.
Why are you here? Are any of you trying to change another person's opinion? If you are, you belong on Usenet, and best of luck.
Regretably, you make a good point. I'm sure that Wikepedia too has its expected 61% of otherwise good people who will always push the button when told to do it. Sometimes people just want to be told what to do even while they're voicing support for some kind of democracy. They become so afraid to offend that they no longer trust their. They're perfect soldiers -- perfect cannon fodder. When they defend an opinion it's with the ardour of a my-country-right-or-wrong patriot.
Eclecticology
Gee, is that aimed at me? How do you know that what I advocate isn't my own opinon? You haven't bothered to ask, have you? Zoe Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:koyaanisqatsi@nupedia.com wrote:
When I think of wikipedia, somehow I'm reminded of the [[Milgram experiment]]--except the seats are really wired. Currently I would not recommend anyone join wikipedia, unless the person knows of some obscure Russian filmmaker to write about or some photographic technique which calls for dry unemotional writing. Something about the culture here is just *wrong*; it calls to people who itch to have a buzzer in hand, and those of us lucky enough not to be on the receiving end are still uncomfortable watching the spectacle.
Why are you here? Are any of you trying to change another person's opinion? If you are, you belong on Usenet, and best of luck.
Regretably, you make a good point. I'm sure that Wikepedia too has its expected 61% of otherwise good people who will always push the button when told to do it. Sometimes people just want to be told what to do even while they're voicing support for some kind of democracy. They become so afraid to offend that they no longer trust their. They're perfect soldiers -- perfect cannon fodder. When they defend an opinion it's with the ardour of a my-country-right-or-wrong patriot.
Eclecticology
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 koyaanisqatsi@nupedia.com wrote:
When I think of wikipedia, somehow I'm reminded of the [[Milgram experiment]]--except the seats are really wired. Currently I would not recommend anyone join wikipedia, unless the person knows of some obscure Russian filmmaker to write about or some photographic technique which calls for dry unemotional writing. Something about the culture here is just *wrong*; it calls to people who itch to have a buzzer in hand, and those of us lucky enough not to be on the receiving end are still uncomfortable watching the spectacle.
That is a pessimistic view of Wikipedia in its current state. Accurate, from what I've observed of certain articles, but still pessimistic.
Unfortunately, the evaluation of mankind's accumulated knowledge frequently results in the same kind of dust-ups we're seeing in Wikipedia. For example, Eric Thompson, while undoubtedly the most learned & influential scholar of Mayan history & culture in recent times, nonetheless delayed the successful translation of Mayan inscriptions for a generation because of his own biasses and a tenacious insistence on his own POV. For an example outside of the humanities, I am reminded of an attempt by one of the leading US medical journals -- I forget if it was the New England Journal of Medicine or the Journal of the AMA -- to review the lauded discoveries that journal had published a few years prior: after a few months they discontinued this series, having discovered that far too many of these articles turned out to have been bad science![*]
[*] I mention this story not to impeach science or the scientific method, but to show that the scientific method is not always rigorously applied -- nor always consistently.
Why are you here? Are any of you trying to change another person's opinion? If you are, you belong on Usenet, and best of luck.
Speaking for myself, I'd say that I'm attempting to argue the following thesis: "Here is some valuable information you should know. Read it." And if someone believes that her/his information is either just as valuable or more valuable, then as Jimbo is running Wikipedia at this time, they are welcome to add it to what I'm providing.
At one time I thought I could very craftily tilt the content of Wikipedia towards my own POV, but as it accumulates more articles, this becomes less possible. Let me offer an analogy to explain my point. Suppose that I want a landscape to be nothing but forest, instead of a yucky grassland, & so I spend my time & efforts digging up the grasslands & planting trees. After some time at this, I realize just how hard it is to plant even as much as a few acres of trees, & accept the fact that there will be grasslands in this landscape.
Of course, the conflicts seem to focus on the prime bits of real estate that everyone wants to garden their own way. But I cannot help but wonder that when a Wikipedian has won the battle & one article reflects her/his own "N"POV, if that Wikipedian follows the hyperlinks to see whether the other articles subvert the thesis proven after so much labor.
Geoff
koyaanisqatsi@nupedia.com wrote:
Something about the culture here is just *wrong*; it calls to people who itch to have a buzzer in hand, and those of us lucky enough not to be on the receiving end are still uncomfortable watching the spectacle.
This can change, this should change.
Why are you here? Are any of you trying to change another person's opinion? If you are, you belong on Usenet, and best of luck.
I agree.
--Jimbo