Recommended Posts

It is quite a while since lve used wiki. But it seems to have changed. The historical stuff I mainly use Is the same, but the entries of living people range from bare minimum details to full blown autobiographies or resumes.   Does everyone get to curate their own entries now.?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wikipedia is censored by social justice warriors. They are the vast majority of the moderators.

Which means often there is narrative disconnected to reality in the place of information. But it's mixed with information to make it look good.

However, the information is woefully incomplete when social issues are covered.

Some people are right at home there.

:evil: 

I like Wikipedia as a starting point for technical things. For people, I look up actors and people like that. It's pure garbage for history and historical people that involves politics.

There's a lot more, but most of its failings these days come from the censorship. Many fine experts refuse to contribute these days because of that. 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since all history consists of politics and social issues, you are kind of hard on wellmeaning people who just wanntto give the public the skinny on Cato the Elder in a simple format. But I forget that history to most Americans started in 1776, or else in the unfathomable few years before their own births--the latter is the same with Canadians. But since the infighting of ideas is almost as deadly in academic circles as it is in parochial ones, I,ll takeyour word about moderators.

But my question was, are all the entries about living people moderated, or are they only fact checked?

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Carol,

You don't need to take my word for it.

Larry Sanger, one of the co-founders of Wikipedia, is disgusted over this and bashes it constantly. He is no longer part of the project and is making a new one.

Oddly enough, you can get a decent overview on Wikipedia itself: Larry Sanger.

I think they are too embarrassed by the original scandals to alter any more information about Larry Sanger. He bashes them relentlessly.

Larry and I communicated on Twitter for a while, back when I posted there. He's a really nice guy.

I no longer post on Twitter, although I do get information from there at times and post it on OL due to the ease of embedding. Also, it helps that the OL encryption keeps the text online when Twitter deletes a tweet.

Michael

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This does not belong on this thread but I don't dare change screens , because when I do I get signed out.Although remember me has been clearly checked every damn time.  WHAT IS GOING ON HERE NOW?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Larry Sanger, one of the co-founders of Wikipedia, is disgusted over this...

By chance, this article just came out on Breitbart.

It is by a former editor (moderator) of Wikipedia who got banned for conflicting with the biases and reporting a conflict of interest editing by a big wig over there. On Wikipedia, he used the name, The Devil’s Advocate. Now, he still writes in public under an alias, T. D. Adler. The reason is to protect his family and himself against witch hunts, doxing, etc., by the Wikipedia lefties pissed at him.

Wikipedia Plagued by Controversy, Bias in 20th Year

Quote

Wikipedia celebrated its 20th anniversary on January 15, following a year of considerable controversy for the online encyclopedia. The site’s increasing leftward bias became more apparent in the preceding year with Wikipedia’s owners imposing a “code of conduct” advancing left-wing identity politics, editors actively pushing a Black Lives Matter agenda, disputes regarding its medical coverage, an ongoing purge of conservative media, and aiding the 2020 Presidential campaign of Joe Biden. Affiliated sites in other languages also saw controversy over widespread errors.

Such problems highlight the unreliability of the site at a time when media, academics, and Big Tech, are only increasing their own reliance on the site with the Foundation seeking to capitalize on this by launching a new commercial service catering to Big Tech. Following are six of the controversies that Wikipedia experienced throughout its 20th year:

Code of Conduct
. . .
Black Lives Matter and Antifa
. . .
Medicine and Coronavirus
. . .
Sourcing Bans
. . .
Biden and the 2020 election
. . .
Scots and Malagasy sites
. . .
History of bias and errors

Early on, I tried editing things over there.

The moderators were impossible to deal with.

In O-Land, Mike Hardy is the only one I know of who has been consistently successful as a moderator over there, but I don't know about recently since I have downgraded the info there in my mind (it's all tainted until double checked elsewhere is my default position) and no longer check the controversies.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Michael Hardy is, or was, a math professor at MIT. Hopefully the spacing will stay in the following letter he wrote for big brained eggheads. Peter

From: Michael Hardy To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Bill Dwyer's question Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 22:17:40 -0400 (EDT) Sorry about mistaking Bill Dwyer for Jeff Olson.

The former wrote: Mike, Since most of us are not mathematicians, perhaps you would do us the favor of explaining what you mean by an "infinite number", and also provide an example of one. Bill

I -knew- there was a reason why I should stay out of this Zeno thread..........

PLEASE CAREFULLY DIGEST THE FOLLOWING BEFORE CRITICIZING, OR I'LL HAVE TO HAVE YOU _DEALT_WITH_.

OK.  A "cardinal" number is the answer to the question "how many?".  The finite cardinal numbers are 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ...... . There are infinitely many of them.  A cardinal number is the size of a -set-.  The identity of any -set- is determined by which members it has.  One can say of two sets, that they have the same cardinal number if and only if there exists some one-to-one correspondence between them.  So {A, B, C, D} and {C, D, G, Q} are sets, and

     A <----> C

     B <----> D

     C <----> G

     D <----> Q

 

is a one-to-one correspondence between them.  And

 

     A <----> G

     B <----> Q

     C <----> C

     D <----> D

 is another one-to-one correspondence between them.  There is no one-to-one correspondence between {A, B, C, D} and {C, D, G, Q, Z}, so those two sets do not have the same cardinal number.  The -infinite- set {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, .... } of all -finite- cardinal numbers has the -same- cardinality (i.e., the same cardinal number) as the infinite set {0, 2, 4, 6, .... } of all -even- numbers because a one-to-one correspondence between them exists:

     0 <----> 0

     1 <----> 2

     2 <----> 4

     3 <----> 6

     . ...... .

     . ...... .

     . ...... .

     . ...... .

     . ...... .

 

The infinite set {0, 1, 2, 3, .... } of all finite cardinal numbers has the -same- cardinality as the infinite set

{ .... , -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, .... } of all integers because this one-to-one correspondence between them exists:

 

     0 <---->  0

     1 <---->  1

     2 <----> -1

     3 <---->  2

     4 <----> -2

     5 <---->  3

     6 <----> -3

     7 <---->  4

     8 <----> -4

     9 <---->  5

     . ......  .

     . ......  .

     . ......  .

When I was about 13 years old I heard this question posed: If infinitely many eggs are in each of infinitely many nests, are there more eggs than nests?  The answer is sometimes, but not always, "No.  There are just as many."  Suppose the set of nests involved has the same cardinal number as the set {0, 1, 2, 3, .... } of finite cardinal numbers, so the nests are numbered 0, 1, 2, 3, ...., and within each nest the eggs are numbered the same way, so that within each nest the set of eggs has the same cardinality as does the set {0, 1, 2, 3, .... } of finite cardinal numbers.

  nest # |      egg #

         |

    0    |   0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ......

    1    |   0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ......

    2    |   0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ......

    3    |   0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ......

    4    |   0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ......

    5    |   0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ......

    6    |   0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ......

    .    |   .  .  .  .  .  ......

    .    |   .  .  .  .  .  ......

    .    |   .  .  .  .  .  ......

    .    |   .  .  .  .  .  ......

    .    |   .  .  .  .  .  ......

 

Why are there NO MORE eggs than nests?  I.e., why does the set of eggs have the same cardinal number as the set of nests?  In other words, what one-to-one correspondence exists between the set of eggs and the set of nests?  To see the answer, think carefully about the PATTERN in the following array, and superimpose it on the list of eggs that you see above!  (Connect the dots!  Then you'll see how to continue the pattern.)

 

             0  1  4  9 16 25

             3  2  5 10 17 26

             8  7  6 11 18 27

            15 14 13 12 19 28

            24 23 22 21 20 29

            35 34 33 32 31 30

Next question: Does the "infinite divisibility" of the line imply that the cardinality of the set of points on the line is greater than the cardinality of the set {0, 1, 2, 3, .... } of finite cardinal numbers?  Answer: NO.  INFINITE DIVISIBILITY IS NOT ENOUGH!

For example, consider the fractions between 0 and 1:

                    1/2

             1/3           2/3

         1/4        2/4        3/4

      1/5      2/5       3/5      4/5

    1/6      2/6    3/6    4/6      5/6

   1/7    2/7    3/7   4/7    5/7    6/7

  .......................................

.........................................

 

Cross out the ones that are not in lowest terms.  E.g.  2/4 is the same number as 1/2;  so is 3/6,  etc.   And 2/6 = 1/3, etc.

 

                    1/2

             1/3           2/3

         1/4        XXX        3/4

      1/5      2/5       3/5      4/5

    1/6      XXX    XXX    XXX      5/6

   1/7    2/7    3/7   4/7    5/7    6/7

  .......................................

.........................................

 

(Notice that if you're viewing this with a monospaced font capable of showing you ascii graphics, then I've got these in the right order from left to right, i.e., 2/7 is indeed bigger than 1/4 and smaller than 1/3, etc.)

The set of quantities so represented between 0 and 1 is "infinitely divisible", i.e., between any two, no matter how close together, there are yet others.  And yet the cardinal number of this "infinitely divisible" set of points on the line segment from 0 to 1 is nonetheless the same as the cardinal number of the set {0, 1, 2, 3, .... } of all finite cardinal numbers.  To see why, think about the PATTERN below, which let us call the  NUMERATION SCHEME, and superimpose it on the picture above.

                      0

              1             2

          3         XXX         4

       5        6         7        8

     9       XXX    XXX    XXX      10

   11     12     13     14     15     16

  .......................................

.........................................

 

So infinite divisibility won't do it, either.

But infinite divisibility plus gaplessness WILL.

"Gaplessness" of the infinitely divisible line, means that if you partition the set of all points on the line into a left half and a right half, with all of the points in the former to the left of all in the latter, then some point on the line is at the boundary, so that any point to the left of that point is in the left half and any point to the right of that point is in the right half.  (Do we consider the boundary point to be in the left half or the right?  It turns out we won't care, so toss a coin if you like.)

It is perhaps not obvious, but is nonetheless true, that the our array of fractions has lots of gaps in it.  To see where some gaps are, first remember the ENUMERATION SCHEME described above.  As we go through the list of fractions in accordance with the ENUMERATION SCHEME described above, we will decide when we come to each fraction, whether to put it into the left half or the right half of the line.  If it's to the left of one we've already put into the left half, then of course it's got to go into the left half, and if it's to the right of one we've already put into the right half, then it's got to go into the right half.  If it's between the one's we've already put into the left half and those we've already put in the right half, then we'll look at what we did LAST TIME we we're faced with such a choice and go the _other_ way.  I.e., if last time we said "right" then this time we'll say "left" and vice versa.

                     1/2

             1/3           2/3

         1/4        XXX        3/4

      1/5      2/5       3/5      4/5

    1/6      XXX    XXX    XXX      5/6

   1/7    2/7    3/7   4/7    5/7    6/7

  .......................................

.........................................

 

So first we come to 1/2.  Let's say "left".

Then we come to 1/3, and we have no choice; we _have_to_ say "left".

Then 2/3, and we have a choice.  Last time we had a choice (with 1/2) we said "left", so this time we say "right".

 Then 1/4, and we have to say "left".

Then 3/4, and we have to say "right".

Then 1/5, and we have to say "left".

Then 2/5, and we have to say "left".

Then 3/5, and, lo and behold, we have a choice!  Last time we had a choice (with 2/3), we said "right", so this time we say "left".

This rule of alternation-whenever-a-choice-arises, completely determines forever which fractions go into the left half and which into the right half.

Now, "gaplessness" means there's some boundary point -- some point such that to the left of that point you're in the left half and to the right of that point you're in the right half.  WHICH FRACTION IS THE BOUNDARY POINT?  No matter which fraction it is, our ENUMERATION SCHEME will bring us to it in FINITELY many steps! And then our scheme of deciding "right" or "left" will decide for that point, thereby narrowing down the interval of points not yet assigned to the left or right.  And then our scheme of deciding left or right will push that point aside and locate the boundary somewhere to the left or right of it, so that it's NOT the boundary point!

So we have a contradiction following from the assumption of gaplessness.  We have found a gap!

We can find other gaps by the same method: If we want a gap between 2/7 and 3/7, just classify the former as left and the latter as right and then proceed as above, with the obvious modifications.

Now what would it mean to say that a line that is BOTH infinitely divisibly AND gapless, has a larger cardinality than the cardinality  of the set {0, 1, 2, 3, .... } of all finite cardinal numbers?

It would mean that we can find a one-to-one correspondence between the set {0, 1, 2, 3, .... } of all finite cardinal numbers and some SUBSET of the line that is BOTH infinitely divisibly AND gapless, BUT we canNOT find of any one-to-one correspondence between the set {0, 1, 2, 3, .... } of all finite cardinal numbers and the WHOLE set of points on the line that is BOTH infinitely divisibly AND gapless.

How can we prove the non-existence of any such one-to-one correspondence? Proofs of non-existence are done by reductio ad absurdum.  Assume there IS some such one-to-one correspondence:

    0 <----> ?

    1 <----> ?

    2 <----> ?

    3 <----> ?

    4 <----> ?

    5 <----> ?

    . ...... .

    . ...... .

    . ...... .

Any such one-to-one correspondence could be put in the role of the ENUMERATION SCHEME we used above, and then we could find a gap by the same method we used above!  Contradiction.  End of reductio-ad-absurdum.

Thus we have now distinguished between two different infinite cardinal numbers.  Sets with the same cardinal number as the set {0, 1, 2, 3, .... } of all finite cardinal numbers, are called COUNTABLY INFINITE sets.

Other infinite sets, including the set of points on the line that is BOTH infinitely divisibly AND gapless are UNCOUNTABLY INFINITE.

The argument above was written by Georg Cantor, a German mathematician, in December 1873.  He called the cardinality of countably infinite sets "aleph_0", i.e., the Hebrew letter aleph with a subscript 0. He called the cardinality of the set of points on the line that is BOTH infinitely divisibly AND gapless "c".   "c" must NOT be confused with "aleph_1", which is another infinite cardinal number that he identified.  Where c = aleph_1 was a problem he and many successors failed to solve, and in 1963 it was finally proved that we lack the means to solve it. Mike Hardy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow on Mike Hardy. Internet discourse back then looks pretty golden-aged now from the present one of the Jean leTourettes.

But has Jim Wales stopped being an Objectivist and become a social warrior? Why?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Jimbo has stepped aside at Wikipedia. I remember a conversation when I asked about Jimmy Wales and a lady at Wikipedia told me to put all my questions to her. I don’t know for sure but I would say Jimbo Wales is still a little “o” objectivist.  Below, the first letter is from Ellen Stuttle, (I think from OL years ago) and then there is a sampling of Mr. Wales letters. Peter

From Ellen Stuttle on Objectivist living, July 3, 2013. Kyle, Re #5: I'm pretty sure that Jimbo was the moderator or one of the moderators of an Objectivist list which operated long before Atlantis. MDOP, I think it was called, Moderated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy. That was back when you had to print stuff out on barred computer graph paper. My husband subscribed for a while, but then got tired of the mass of print-outs.

Jimbo was not the originator or owner of Atlantis. That was Kirez Korgan, who previously had run a different list operating from the Cornell University server. Kirez was a student at Cornell. (He's subsequently changed his name, btw; I don't know to what.). Joshua Zader became Kirez' co-moderator. They took turns.

In 1999, Kirez and Joshua set up a family of lists called the WTL family - We The Living. The two biggest of those lists were OWL - Objectivism at We (The) Living - and ATL - Atlantis. There were also a PSYCH list, an art list, a parenting list, and some others.

OWL had the biggest subscribership. It was moderated, by rotating moderators, and there was a per/day posting limit for each poster.

ATL was unmoderated; it had an "anything goes" policy and no per-poster posting limit. For some years it was a free-wheeling place with enormous posting traffic, although never more than 250 subscribers at its peak membership. Arguments there could and non-infrequently did desert "civility."

How Jimbo came into it with Atlantis is that the WTL family of lists was hosted through a server he provided via his business. In 2002, during a discussion which I think pertained to US policy on Iraq, Jimbo was active in a dispute in which he was disagreeing, strongly, with the intensely held opinions of some of the most-prolific posters. Jeff Riggenbach started a thread addressed to Jimbo's arguments and using the words "functional illiterate," a favorite epithet of JR's, in the thread title.

Kirez at that point was pretty much an absentee overseer. He was busy with other things and wasn't following list content. When problems needing executive action arose, people had to email Kirez to get his attention. (There had been one circumstance, I think the only one on the original ATL, when members called for a banning. The object of the request was a particular poster who exceeded the prevailing reluctance to ban with his posting, most every night, streams of drunken and obscenity-laced diatribes.)

When JR started the thread with the insult to Jimbo in the subject line, Jimbo promptly decreed, as an either/or deal - either accept or find a different server - a civility policy with himself as overseer.

One regular promptly started a Yahoo list called Atlantis_II which objectors could use as refuge and retreat. Some persons argued for a while with Jimbo on the original list. He was adamant. So a large percentage of members, I estimate more than 3/4 of the members, left.

(Edit: By "left" I mean stopped posting on Old Atlantis. Many members stayed subscribed in order to get the posts and keep tabs on what was happening. Sometimes posts from Old ATL were copied onto ATL_II and discussed there.)

I think that Jimbo did not understand the dynamics of the list, and didn't realize that he was wrecking those dynamics. For instance, I happened to be on-line when Jimbo made the announcement. I immediately sent Jimbo an off-list note saying that I for one would not continue posting if he put the policy into effect.

Jimbo was also on-line. He sent back a surprised note. Why would I object?, he didn't understand, I wasn't one of those whom he thought needed moderating. Dense, dense, dense, I thought - and said, not quite using that exact word, at first, to Jimbo himself.

Jimbo's policy destroyed the "alchemy" of the original ATL.

Some posters supported him, including two who were then astonished to find posts of theirs subjected to moderation. Those two were Ellen Moore and Jason Alexander. Ellen Moore stayed, and argued with Jimbo - I imagine causing him to want to tear out his hair (te-he). Jason left.

A few years later, I forget if it was in late 2004 or in 2005, bothering with ATL became more of a nuisance than Jimbo was willing to deal with. Plus the whole WTL family of lists was using server space which he wanted freed for other purposes. Thus he announced that in X months the whole operation would be shut down and the archives would be wiped out. The archives of all the lists were available to be downloaded by members during that lag time.

Atlantis_II had meanwhile become the place where the main action was, although with a missing "edge" of verve because of the missing antagonists who irritated most everyone else. Instead A_2 members had to fight amongst ourselves.

Membership and traffic gradually waned. Today only a handful of "old friends" still chat on A_2. (I still get the posts myself, but I read few of them and almost never blip in with a comment. If I recall right, late 2011 was the last time I said anything on A_2.) Ellen

From: Jimmy Wales To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: RE: more re inheritance Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:20:48 -0800. William Dwyer wrote: >Again, this is very puzzling to me.  First, you say, "I'm not saying that [being deprived of being able to do what you wish with the wealth you have created and earned] is fair.  Then you say, "Whatever we may earn in our life doesn't...bestow a right to control nature or future generations for the next hundred years any more than it gives us the right to live a hundred years."  But it does give us a right to control for the next hundred years that part of nature that we own, if our sale of the property includes a contract with a restrictive covenant dictating how the property is to be used and the conditions under which title to it is to be transferred.

Why "for the next hundred years"?  Why not 10?  Why not 1000? Or, why not just until the instant after our deaths.

First, let me distance what I'm talking about from Mike's advocacy of inheritance taxes, which I think are wrong and fundamentally unfair, and which, anyway, are only tangentially a part of this philosophical puzzle. One conceivable legal regime that sounds somewhat appealing to me is a rule that wills have to fully vest immediately upon our deaths.  That is, we can give away our wealth as we see fit in our wills, but the transfer has to be fully complete at that moment.

We could write our wills with contingencies, for convenience sake, for example "I leave my entire estate to Nathaniel Branden, unless I have publicly repudiated him by the time of my death, in which case I leave my entire state to Leonard Peikoff." But what we could not do is write our wills with transfers that don't complete for several years, such as "I leave my entire estate to Leonard Peikoff, to vest 20 years after my death, so long as Harry Binswanger is not at that time of the opinion that Leonard has botched the job of maintaining the integrity of my legacy."

This is not the current state of the law, but what's wrong with it, exactly?  Why not have a rule that obligations _to the dead_ are no longer legally binding (though of course they can be morally binding). At least some objections don't really hold water, I think.  If we suppose that this means that long term contracts are impossible, we are supposing wrong, because it's quite simple for a person's interest in a contract to be immediately passed along to an heir.

For example, suppose that I lend George Smith some money to build a house.  Then, I die.  But I have, in my will, left all my assets to my wife and daughter.  The contract is still valid, and George's legal obligation to repay the money is unchanged. Under the system that I'm considering, there never arises a situation where living parties are all legally constrained by the wishes of a dead person, even though they all wish things were otherwise.  And that's surely something worth avoiding? --Jimbo

From: Jimmy Wales To: atlantis Subject: ATL: One Amendment Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 12:04:27 -0700. In the vein of the question about a bill of rights for a hypothetical Iraqi constitution, here's a similar question: if you had the power to put into place one amendment to the United States constitution, what would it be?

I got this idea from libertarian law professor Eugene Volokh:

http://volokh.blogspot.com/2003_02_23_volokh_archive.html#90381314

Be sure to read his post for all the "rules of the challenge" so to speak. My own suggestion, as you might have guessed from my comments earlier today, would be an amendment modifying the Article I, section 9 power to spend money: "No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time."

My amendment would read: Section 1. No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary.

Section 2.  The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary.

The essential idea here is to restrain the size of government by raising the bar.  This would not result in overnight perfection, obviously, but it would help a great deal, I think. --Jimbo

From: Jimmy Wales To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Public goods Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 11:23:33 -0700. I'd like to motivate this discussion by pointing out that if there are real economic phenomena that are ignored or evaded by political theorists, then those theorists will come to invalid conclusions.

Anti-capitalist theorists who ignore or evade the role of the price system in the distribution of information will fail to understand much about markets, and will come to invalid conclusions.  They will find themselves unable to make valid predictions of the future.

Similarly, pro-capitalists theorists who ignore or evade particular issues in economics (perhaps out of a fear that if they looked too closely, they'd have to give up some other cherished notions – but the motive isn't important, the results are) -- these theorists will fail to understand markets, and will end up coming to invalid conclusions, too.

Additionally, a failure to grasp some important issue will mean that when the pro-capitalist theorist is arguing with people who are middle-of-the-road or anti-capitalist, the argument will fail to be persuasive.  If you don't understand the public goods problem, and if you go around telling people that it doesn't exist, or that it's a statist hoax, then people who *do* understand the public goods problem will not change their minds about politics -- they will decide that you don't know what you're talking about.

So, today, I want people to read and concentrate and understand two things -- public goods, and the public goods problem.

I.  What is a public good?

A public good is a good which is nonexcludable and has nonrivalrous consumption.  If a public good is produced, then the producer can't control who gets it.  Anyone who wants it gets it, and there's nothing the producer can do about it.

When we talking about public "goods", who gets to decide if it's really a good?  This is important.  It will not do for an economist to go around deciding what is really good, and then criticizing the people in an economy for not valuing the right things.  No, a valid concept of any "goods" *has to be from the perspective of agents acting in the economy*.

A classic example of a public good is a traditional radio broadcast. When the good is produced it is nonexcludable -- anyone can receive the broadcast, and there's nothing that the broadcaster can do about it.  And it is also nonrivalrous in consumption -- my listening to the radio doesn't diminish anyone else's ability to listen to the radio.

II.  What is a public goods _problem_?

The problem of a public good is a problem _from the perspective of the people participating in the economy_.  No other conception of the problem is valid. The problem is that unless some solution is found to the problem, the public good will not be produced. Traditionally, this is the point where statists jump in with their solution -- force everyone to pay for the public good, and have the state (or connected people) produce it. But this is hardly the only solution to a public goods problem, as the radio example shows.  Radio broadcasts are produced, and paid for with advertising. The problem here is that producers can't charge consumers for listening to the radio.  So some other means of financing must be found.  Advertising is one solution, applicable in the case of radio, but not applicable in other cases.

Notice, too, that another solution has become possible with radio in very recent years.  There is a new type of radio (XM radio, broadcast by satellite, and paid for by consumers) which is not tied to the advertising model.  This has become possible because of technological innovations which make it cheap for the satellite radio stations to encrypt their signal, so that only people who pay for the decryption codes can listen.  This type of radio is not a public good.

-------------

I'll stop here to let objections flow.  If any seem compelling, I'll post a corrected version of this.

But after that I'd like to get into the meat of this.  What are some important public goods problems related to the provision of justice services, and why do they impact negatively on traditional arguments for anarcho-capitalism? That's what we were talking about a few months ago when George stunned me by completely denying the existence of public goods problems. --Jimbo

From: Jimmy Wales To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: a more positive view of pride? Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 09:39:28 -0700. I'd like to give that paragraph an even more positive rewrite than Roger did...

PaleoObjectivist@aol.com wrote: >"The virtue of Pride is the recognition of the fact 'that as man must produce the physical values he needs to sustain his life, so he must acquire the values of character that make his life worth sustaining -- that as man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soul.' (Atlas Shrugged) The virtue of Pride can best be described by the term 'moral ambitiousness.' It means that one must earn the right to hold oneself as one's own highest value by achieving one's own moral perfection -- which one achieves [here comes the negative part] by never accepting any code of irrational virtues impossible to practice and by never failing to practice the virtues one knows to be rational -- by never accepting an unearned guilt and never earning any, or, if one ~has~ earned it, never leaving it uncorrected -- by never resigning oneself passively to any flaws in one's character -- by never placing any concern, wish, fear or mood of the moment above the reality of one's own self-esteem. And, above all, it means one's rejection of the role of a sacrificial animal, the rejection of any doctrine that preaches self-immolation as a moral virtue or duty." (VOS, pp. 29-30)

Roger's rewrite:  >[Beginning with Rand's wording] The virtue of Pride can best be described by the term 'moral ambitiousness.' It means that one must earn the right to hold oneself as one's own highest value by achieving one's own moral perfection -- which one achieves....

I would replace the deontic-sounding 'must' with 'can and should'... "It means that one can and should earn the right to hold oneself as one's own highest value by achieving one's own moral perfection...'

 > ....by scrupulously adopting a code of rational virtues that are possible to practice and by scrupulously practicing those virtues -- by scrupulously correcting any guilt that one has earned -- by scrupulously correcting any flaws in one's character -- by scrupulously holding the reality of one's own self-esteem above any concern, wish, fear or mood of the moment. And, above all, it means one's scrupulous adherence to the principle that one is, like every other human being, an end in oneself, not a means to the ends of others.

Even with your rewrite, there's still a strong focus on the negatives, i.e. "guilt that one has earned", "flaws in one's character".

I thought it'd be easy to rewrite it again to give it a more positive spin, but instead I guess I'll just wrap up by saying that I think it could be done. --Jimbo

Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot to mention but I am fairly sure Jimbo is a friend of British billionaire Richard Branson. Peter

From Wikipedia: Jimmy Donal Wales (born August 7, 1966) is an American-British Internet entrepreneur and former financial trader. He is also a co-founder of the online non-profit encyclopedia Wikipedia, and the for-profit web hosting company Wikia (later renamed to Fandom). Wales was born in Huntsville, Alabama, where he attended Randolph School, a university-preparatory school. He earned bachelor's and master's degrees in finance from Auburn University and the University of Alabama respectively. In graduate school, Wales taught at two universities; however, he departed before completing a PhD to take a job in finance and later worked as the research director of a Chicago futures and options firm. In 1996, he and two partners founded Bomis, a web portal featuring entertainment and adult content. Bomis provided the initial funding for the free peer-reviewed encyclopedia, Nupedia (2000–2003), and its successor, Wikipedia. On January 15, 2001, with Larry Sanger and others, Wales launched Wikipedia—a free, open-content encyclopedia that enjoyed rapid growth and popularity. As Wikipedia's public profile grew, he became its promoter and spokesman. Though he is historically credited as co-founder, he has disputed this, declaring himself the sole founder. Wales serves on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, the charity that he helped establish to operate Wikipedia, holding its board-appointed "community founder" seat. For his role in creating Wikipedia, which has become the world's largest encyclopedia, Time named him one of "The 100 Most Influential People in the World" in 2006.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

I just moved this thread from "Meet and Greet" to "Persuasion Techniques" since Wikipedia has turned into a Stalinesque History Rewriting project.

That's one form of persuasion--gross oligarchy-controlled censorship on oligarchy-controlled platforms.

 

Now to another issue. Here is a fascinating discussion about how Wikipedia started and what it evolved into with Larry Sanger, even though the title is about current events at the time of this post.

Larry talks about his early relationship with Jimmy Wales. 

 

TIMCAST IRL - JAMES O'KEEFE BANNED ON TWITTER, WILL SUE W/WIKIPEDIA EX-FOUNDER LARRY SANGER

image.png

 

This is a long one, a little over two and a half hours, but I found it worth every minute.

Also, under settings on the video player (the cogwheel icon), I listened to most of it at twice the speed. Only in a few instances did I stop, back up and slow it down to normal for a small stretch to correctly understand what people were saying (like with names or unfamiliar words or mumbling).

For those who are interested in Section 280, and even James O'Keefe's current takedown of CNN and related litigation, this is a great conversation.

Enjoy.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now