First cutting to the chase here:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
This objection suggests to me that you don't really get the point I'm trying to make here.
If this article is representative, then yes, I also think our current process of collaboratively editing (or edit warring) the current pages could be overwhelmed for a while, even with a trickle of articles.
This could result in a quantity of non NPOV (Marxist bias) material being served as current pages until our existing rate of contribution can process it.
Personally I do not see this as a new issue. Our current process routinely serves biased or non NPOV material on the current page until editors get around to editing it. We short circuit this a bit with dedicated regulars tracking the recent changes page alert for obviously unsuitable or NPOV material.
This will be true until we implement some sort of revision control process and serve only material NPOV'ed to some threshold as the current page. Elsewhere I proposed a mechanism for this that I hoped would also reduce edit wars by placing a focus on creating suitable material for pages worth promotion to current page status instead of deleting unsuitable material from the current page. I think LDC also proposed a mechanism which was slightly different.
I think our current process works overall in the long run in that the bias is steadily eroded as diverse new contributors discuss and improve it. I think it is probable that much bias still exists in many areas through lack of diverse participation in the community or in specific areas.
Perhaps if a few Marxists join us to hand trickle their material in we can request that they help us identify our own biases in other material as we assist them in NPOV'ing the new Marxist material. In other words, that they participate fully in the community project with the goal of a complete NPOV enclyclopedia. This could be a quantum leap in overall quality from some perspectives.
.... and now on to the verbose yet highly interesting Devil's Advocacy and philosophical nitpicking. Non interested readers are advised to stop here.
regards, Mike Irwin
Michael R. Irwin wrote:
<snip>
Jimmy Wales wrote:
What I would object to is a generic article called "freedom" which says "Freedom for the vast majority necessarily means restriction of the freedom of a small minority to exploit the labour of others".
This I understand. I also would object if other views were to be excluded. My personal definition of freedom as a U.S. citizen is probably somewhat similar to yours.
However, I can see some validity to this particular theoretical viewpoint.
In order to reattain "freedom" to drink non carcinogenic water in the U.S. it has proven necessary to regulate the entire economy with regard to pesticides, toxic industrial waste, etc. Now I believe that most Americans would not intentionally and willfilly poisen their neighbors downstream, but apparently a substantial minority will not refrain voluntarily. If a free market economy with no environmental regulations tends to raise the unscrupulous or willfully ignorant to top decision making positions because it is cheaper to dump industrial waste products than process them safely into other products or store them safely; then it will be necessary to either distill your own water, avoid swimming holes, avoid fishing, and etc. or else regulate chemical dumping.
Incidentally, it is interesting to note that it has been in the news for years that U.S. Corporations seem to be happily poisening Mexicans and a few Texans who share their groundwater, via chemical dumping just across the U.S. Mexican border. Apparently Mexico has refused to follow Marx's advice and regulate the few, even if they are gringo owned foreign corporations, for the benefit of the many. This dedication to freedom is killing and maiming many people each year for the bottom line of chemical companies run by heroic absentee CEOs.
Enron, Worldcom, etc. have certainly demonstrated some regulation and prosecution is necessary in capital markets (not to mention energy markets) if small investors or consumers are to have equal opportunity to profit from investing decisions or natural market prices of energy.
As I understand this article on the Marxist view of "freedom" Marx was fairly accurate in projecting what was required for a highly successful capitalist society to protect itself from its capitalists and executives. Their freedom to dump industrial wastes for increased profit margins has been restricted (So has mine, so perhaps he was wrong here. Everybody regulated instead of just a "minority".) so that I (and all others) can enjoy clean water and a better overall environment.
His mistakes were apparently in assuming that we must regulate the capitalist out of existence entirely, if he did, and that only the greedy, wealthy, minority must be regulated.
The article mentioned restriction not obliteration. It turns out that partial implementation of his theories in the U.S. in ways compatible with the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, have had solid merit; while eliminating the capitalists entirely did not work well for the Soviets.
I agree though, the title must be augmented as this is not the only form of freedom available in a modern "free" society.
And "Positive freedom has been built up almost exclusively as a result of the struggle of the working class: initially the legislation limiting hours of work, child labour and so on, later the creation of free compulsory education, public health systems, right to form trade unions, and so forth, freedoms which explicitly limit the freedom of the capitalists to exploit workers, but give worker the opportunity to develop as human beings."
See the entire entry here: http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/f/r.htm#freedom
Now, my objection is not just that these things are wrong, nor that they are the noble foundation of the great riproaring genocides of the past century.
Are they? It looked to me like the now failed totalitarian empires pretty consistently ignored the theory.