[WikiEN-l] Ayn Rand and Wikipedia

[Anirudh Bhati]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org>
Date: Wed, May 7, 2008 at 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Ayn Rand and Wikipedia
To: Anirudh Bhati <anirudhsbh at gmail.com>


First of all, thanks for this post.  I think you're right on in
pointing out one pitfall many people fall into with Wikipedia.  It's
not altruism, but escapism (isn't it also hedonism?).

I do think to some extent that altruism and hedonism go hand in hand,
though.  Often the reason Wikipedia is fun, the reason we seek praise,
is because we think it's worth it to sacrifice our time and energies
for others.  Just look at some of the comments of the chair of the
foundation board.  She says the WMF is making her life miserable, yet
she continues to volunteer for it every day (I do believe this will be
her last term, but still, she was complaining about wanting to resign
privately to me years ago).  I think there's a lot of that that goes
on at all levels of Wikipedia, and I think that's much more dangerous
than contributing to Wikipedia because you enjoy it.

I also think that one *can* contribute rationally to Wikipedia because
one enjoys it.  Though I also think there's another even less
dangerous way to contribute, and that's as a learning experience.  A
wiki is an interesting method of communication.  I think it's possible
to benefit from editing a Wikipedia article in the same way I can
benefit from participating on a mailing list, or sending this email to
you.

Now maybe this has nothing to do with Objectivism.  I don't know that
much about Objectivism with which to comment.  I do plan on reading
more about it, but I don't think I'm going to subscribe.  I like the
rational self-interest part, and I mostly like the capitalism part,
but some other parts seem outdated and non-intuitive.  Did Rand ever
reconcile her so-called "Objectivist metaphysics" with modern physics?
 They seem to contradict one another.

"Jimmy Wales and I are indeed friends, i.e. I wasn't being sarcastic.
However, that does not make me a fan of Wikipedia. I'd consider myself
a lukewarm occasional user who wouldn't dream of contributing. I'm too
selfish for that: I value my own words too highly to allow random
morons to edit them at will." - Diana Hsieh

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 3:23 AM, Anirudh Bhati <anirudhsbh at gmail.com> wrote:
> >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.
>
So the WMF is one of "the underdogs and the incapable"?  Maybe I'm
right that Rand would object to this system of funding, but for the
wrong reasons.

However, I do find it hard to see how, at least in our unfree world
run by thugs, donating money to Wikipedia is not an act of altruism
for all but the most wealthy among us.  If I give $100 to the WMF I
necessarily have to give up something else, and in my opinion what I
give up will *always* be worth more to me than it is worth to a
non-profit organization.  That is certainly true in the specific
instance of the WMF - I look at the WMF's budget and it bears no
resemblance to the way I'd spend the money.  But I think there's more
to it than that, and that non-profit organizations almost inevitably
waste money.

Were my $100 to go directly to the underdogs and the incapable, I
wouldn't be able to make the same argument, though I do still wonder
how it is in my rational self-interest to give $100 to a stranger that
I'm probably never going to meet again.

> In an interview, her first appearance on television after the death of her
> husband, she was asked, "Why is altruism bad?" Her response was quick:
"Why
> is suicide bad?"
>
I think I saw that interview on YouTube (was it the Donahue one?), and
it probably inspired my response to the assertion that altruism
doesn't exist because people always do what they *want* to do.  My
response was something to the effect of "What about an anorexic?"  On
the other hand, I either don't agree with or I don't understand her
use of the term "evil" to describe altruism.  The response to my
comment about anorexics was that anorexics have a mental defect so
they have no choice in the matter.  My feeling is that anyone engaging
in altruism has a mental defect to some extent or another.  I wouldn't
call the person performing altruism "evil", I'd call them "stupid", or
maybe "sick".

On the other hand, I realize now that there is another, and maybe
better, response to that claim: rational self-interest is not the same
as hedonism.

Anthony