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