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.