Ayn Rand and Wikipedia - Revision history

Wjhonson at 10:46, 22 September 2009

2009-09-22T10:46:47Z

Wjhonson: /* Chapter 3 */

2008-09-23T02:40:11Z

‎Chapter 3

Wjhonson: /* Chapter 3 */

2008-09-23T02:38:18Z

‎Chapter 3

Wjhonson: /* The Artist and the Committee */

2008-09-23T02:26:02Z

‎The Artist and the Committee

Wjhonson: /* Chapter 1 */

2008-05-04T22:32:31Z

‎Chapter 1

Wjhonson: /* Chapter 2 */

2008-04-29T20:01:08Z

‎Chapter 2

Wjhonson: /* Further reading */

2008-04-29T19:55:52Z

‎Further reading

Wjhonson: /* Chapter Y */

2008-04-29T18:36:35Z

‎Chapter Y

Wjhonson: /* Chapter X */

2008-04-29T18:36:25Z

‎Chapter X

Wjhonson: /* Chapter 1= */

2008-04-29T18:36:00Z

‎Chapter 1=

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:46, 22 September 2009
Line 4:		Line 4:

	Note: This article is not yet finished, it's being built in pieces.		Note: This article is not yet finished, it's being built in pieces.
		+	I'm also writing a version of this same topic called [http://knol.google.com/k/will-johnson/why-ayn-rand-would-decry-jimmy-wales/4hmquk6fx4gu/331# "Why Ayn Rand would decry Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia" on Knol]

	==Introduction==		==Introduction==

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 ==Chapter 3==
-On Wikien-L recently there was renewed discussion, around whether Knol would be better or worse than Wikipedia.  In that thread I stated:<blockquote>My take on her view, is that she was very anti-committee, anything created by committee was almost always fatally flawed vis a vis items created by an individual.  Instead of the final result being "here is AN item which is the ultimate expression of X", you would have "here are several items, each individually created, which each are AN expression of X, you the consumer  decides which is the best"</blockquote>
+On Wikien-L recently there was renewed discussion, around whether Knol would be better or worse than Wikipedia.  In that thread I stated:<blockquote>My take on her view, is that she was very anti-committee, anything created by committee was almost always fatally flawed vis a vis items created by an individual.  Instead of the final result being "here is '''an''' item which is the ultimate expression of X", you would have "here are several items, each individually created, which each are '''an''' expression of X, you the consumer decides which is the best"</blockquote>
-<blockquote>I'm not quite sure is the Knolian approach to how the consumer decides is
+<blockquote>I'm not quite sure if the Knolian approach to how the consumer decides is really going to work or not.  But then every system has flaws.  I'm  willing to give it a shot and see.  I don't even think the Knol architects really know what's going to happen or what they want to happen until a situation appears directly in front of them.  The Knolian approach '''does''' however  almost entirely remove the aspect of edit-warring doesn't it?  And edit-wars are really at the heart of 85% of WP problems. &mdash; wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org, "Why Google's online encyclopedia will never be as good as Wiki...", 22 Sep 2008 by Will Johnson</blockquote>
 really going to work or not.  But then every system has flaws.  I'm  willing to
-give it a shot and see.  I don't even think the Knol architects  really know
-what's going to happen or what they want to happen until a situation  appears
-directly in front of them.  The Knolian approach *does* however  almost
-entirely remove the aspect of edit-warring doesn't it?  And  edit-wars are really at
 the heart of 85% of WP problems. &mdash; wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org, "Why Google's online encyclopedia will never be as good as Wiki...", 22 Sep 2008 by Will Johnson</blockquote>
 =Altruism=

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:38, 23 September 2008
Line 24:		Line 24:

	==Chapter 3==		==Chapter 3==
		+	On Wikien-L recently there was renewed discussion, around whether Knol would be better or worse than Wikipedia. In that thread I stated:<blockquote>My take on her view, is that she was very anti-committee, anything created by committee was almost always fatally flawed vis a vis items created by an individual. Instead of the final result being "here is AN item which is the ultimate expression of X", you would have "here are several items, each individually created, which each are AN expression of X, you the consumer decides which is the best"</blockquote>
		+
		+	<blockquote>I'm not quite sure is the Knolian approach to how the consumer decides is
		+	really going to work or not. But then every system has flaws. I'm willing to
		+	give it a shot and see. I don't even think the Knol architects really know
		+	what's going to happen or what they want to happen until a situation appears
		+	directly in front of them. The Knolian approach does however almost
		+	entirely remove the aspect of edit-warring doesn't it? And edit-wars are really at
		+	the heart of 85% of WP problems. — wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org, "Why Google's online encyclopedia will never be as good as Wiki...", 22 Sep 2008 by Will Johnson</blockquote>

	=Altruism=		=Altruism=

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 =The Artist and the Committee=
 ==Chapter 1==
-Ayn Rand was also a great fan of laissez-faire capitalism, believing it to be the necessary society in which man, the individual man of purpose and dedication, can achieve his greatest work.  That is, the man unfettered by rules, procedures, bureaucracy and committees interjecting themselves into his work; partly because that system is as small as desirable and only as large as necessary.  When an artist creates a great sculpture, an author an amazing novel, an architect a beautiful building, they do so neither by forming a committee, taking a vote, nor reaching consensus.  Ayn Rand's viewpoint was that each person must live free from these sorts of restrictions, free to create fantastic works of art, as individuals.  Ayn felt that whenever an outside agency interferes in the art process, the result is an ugly piece of work, not a beautiful one.  The work created might be imposing but is mediocre, it might be enormous but is mundane.
+Ayn Rand was also a great fan of laissez-faire capitalism, believing it to be the necessary society in which man, the individual man of purpose and dedication, can achieve his greatest work.  That is, the man unfettered by rules, procedures, bureaucracy and committees interjecting themselves into his work; partly because that system is as small as desirable and only as large as necessary.  When an artist creates a great sculpture, an author an amazing novel, an architect a beautiful building, they do so neither by forming a committee, taking a vote, nor reaching consensus with others.  Ayn Rand's viewpoint was that each person must live free from these sorts of restrictions, free to create fantastic works of art, as individuals.  Ayn felt that whenever an outside agency interferes in the art process, the result is not a beautiful piece of work.  The work created might be imposing but is also  mediocre, it might be enormous but is also mundane.
 In "The Fountainhead", her character the Dean says in contrast to her philosophy :<blockquote>"Nothing has ever been invented by one man in architecture.  The proper creative process is a slow, gradual anonymous, collective one, in which each man collaborates with all the others and subordinates himself to the standards of the majority."</blockquote>
 ==Chapter 2==
-So each man is the master of his own artistic destiny, which is not to say, that one man of vision cannot employ others, but they work for him, at his will and order to accomplish his purpose.  You might say they are his adoring accomplises, but the work is credited to the man at the top of the organization.  So how in Ayn's ideal world can two seperate men, each with will and vision work together to accomplish a greater purpose?
+So in Rand's ideal world, each man is the master of his own artistic destiny, which is not to say, that one man of vision cannot employ others, but they work for him &mdash; at his will and order &mdash; to accomplish his purpose.  You might say they are his adoring accomplices, but the work is credited to the man at the top of the organization.  So how in Ayn's ideal world can two separate men, each with will and vision work together to accomplish a greater purpose?
 =Altruism=

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 =The Artist and the Committee=
 ==Chapter 1==
-Ayn Rand was also a great fan of laissez-faire capitalism, believing it to be the necessary society in which man, the individual man of purpose and dedication, can achieve his greatest work.  That is, the man unfettered by rules, procedures, bureaucracy and committees interjecting themselves into his work; partly because that system is as small as desirable and only as large as necessary.  When an artist creates a great sculpture, an author an amazing novel, an architect a beautiful building, they do so neither by forming a committee, taking a vote, nor reaching consensus.  Ayn Rand's viewpoint was that each person must live free from these sorts of restrictions, free to create fantastic works of art, as individuals.  Ayn felt that whenever an outside agency interferes in the art process, the result is an ugly piece of work, not a beautiful one.  In "The Fountainhead", her character the Dean says in contrast to her philosophy :<blockquote>"Nothing has ever been invented by one man in architecture.  The proper creative process is a slow, gradual anonymous, collective one, in which each man collaborates with all the others and subordinates himself to the standards of the majority."</blockquote>
+Ayn Rand was also a great fan of laissez-faire capitalism, believing it to be the necessary society in which man, the individual man of purpose and dedication, can achieve his greatest work.  That is, the man unfettered by rules, procedures, bureaucracy and committees interjecting themselves into his work; partly because that system is as small as desirable and only as large as necessary.  When an artist creates a great sculpture, an author an amazing novel, an architect a beautiful building, they do so neither by forming a committee, taking a vote, nor reaching consensus.  Ayn Rand's viewpoint was that each person must live free from these sorts of restrictions, free to create fantastic works of art, as individuals.  Ayn felt that whenever an outside agency interferes in the art process, the result is an ugly piece of work, not a beautiful one.  The work created might be imposing but is mediocre, it might be enormous but is mundane.
 ==Chapter 2==

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 ==Chapter 2==
-On WikiEN-l, on 29 Apr 2008, Jimmy Wales, responding in the thread "Re: [WikiEN-l] Searchability of non-mainspace pages" stated : "We are here to do something positive and loving for the world, and it makes us proud to be a part of it."
+<blockquote>"We are here to do something positive and loving for the world, and it makes us proud to be a part of it." &mdash; "Re: [WikiEN-l] Searchability of non-mainspace pages", [[Jimmy Wales]], 29 Apr 2008 WikiEN-l</blockquote>
 ==Further reading==
 *[http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--406-FAQ_Virtue_Selfishness.aspx "Virtue of Selfishness"], by J. Raibley at Objectivistcenter.org
 *[http://stairs.umd.edu/140/rand.html "Ayn Rand on the Virtue of Selfishness"], by Allen Stairs, copyright 1997

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:55, 29 April 2008
Line 24:		Line 24:
	==Further reading==		==Further reading==
	*[http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--406-FAQ_Virtue_Selfishness.aspx "Virtue of Selfishness"], by J. Raibley at Objectivistcenter.org		*[http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--406-FAQ_Virtue_Selfishness.aspx "Virtue of Selfishness"], by J. Raibley at Objectivistcenter.org
		+	*[http://stairs.umd.edu/140/rand.html "Ayn Rand on the Virtue of Selfishness"], by Allen Stairs, copyright 1997

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 So each man is the master of his own artistic destiny, which is not to say, that one man of vision cannot employ others, but they work for him, at his will and order to accomplish his purpose.  You might say they are his adoring accomplises, but the work is credited to the man at the top of the organization.  So how in Ayn's ideal world can two seperate men, each with will and vision work together to accomplish a greater purpose?
-==Chapter X==
+=Altruism=
 Another issue that's come forward is whether contributions to Wikipedia are acts of altruism.  If so, do they violate Rand's concepts of altruism?  If not, then what are they?