Anarchopedia - User contributions [en]

Wikipedia

2006-03-08T21:25:58Z

Ronald:

'''Wikipedia''' is a [[large corrupt dictatorship]] controlled by [[Jimbo Wales]], It also receives support from Bomis Inc. in the form of free [[w:bandwidth|bandwidth]] and this connection with a [[for-profit]] [[corporation]] is seen as a burden affecting the functioning of [[Wikipedia]] as ''' a free encyclopedia''' as it claims to be.

''Because Wikipedia censors much discussion of its own deficiencies, this article will focus on these, to balance the view at Wikipedia itself and Meta-Wikipedia, which contains largely a Wikipedia-promoting view.''

Wikipedia claims to be a project to construct an [[encyclopedia]] based on the [[GFDL text corpus]]. It further asserts by claiming it is applying the terms of the GFDL that anything written and released under [[GFDL]], including those directly submitted via [[the Wikipedia user interface]] which is based on [[mediawiki]], can be legally included in the Wikipedia corpus.

http://wikipedia.org is the largest GFDL access point. It suffers from a combination of software deficiencies and a developer and [[sysop power structure]] that is the opposite of democratic, and strongly favours insiders over outsiders. It is generally run better in the 22 languages other than English, since the guiltiest parties actually can't read those languages. The [[GodKing]], Jimmy Wales, can't read or write any language other than English. This is probably good:

Wikipedias' struggle to resolves their internal contradictions (multi-language project run by a [[GodKing]] who speaks and reads only English, claims of neutrality with no outreach or mediation mechanism other than a technology that itself puts a [[sysop power structure]] (see: [[Stanford prison experiment]]) of mostly developed-world people in charge of content, inability to examine its own [[community point of view]]) will provide both good and bad examples for the [[Anarchopedia]], which would do well to avoid all the pitfalls it is falling into.

For instance the [http://fr.wikipedia.org French Wikipedia] is among the best run, although it had teething pains, it attracted competent people who knew to selectively ignore Wales' pronouncements. Probably the worst run today is the [http://simple.wikipedia.org Simple English Wikipedia] - which seems to have no framework even for deciding what "Simple" is to mean... what purposes (or even audiences) it is to serve and what level of English mastery they may have. It has actually discouraged any discussion or policy setting in these regards, the opposite of what a real basis for translation of articles would have done.

===Criticisms:===

Wikipedia is often used as a [[bad example]] in discussions about the [[wiki way]] - sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. Wrong use of it as an example focuses on the fact that it has a specific mission to build some specific content - which in fact almost all wikis do. Wikis are not wholly for the benefit of their authors, but, presumably, create some statement that WE* agree on and can present to others as OUR opinion or best assembly of the facts. The highly confused and ideological [[Meatball Wiki]] has a page [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?WikiPediaIsNotTypical "Wikipedia is not typical"] which focuses on this, as if somehow wikis in general existed solely to facilitate text interchange among their users. Which might be true if wikis were all dating services, or intended to serve purposes like those of [[NetNews]]. However, this is to miss the whole point of [[collaborative editing technology]], which is to produce some output that represents something that is "more true than not". In real wikis, goodwill among contributors is a side effect of dedication to a common goal. In bad ones, it is required even under extreme circumstances of unethical behaviour, e.g. [[echo chamber]]s.

Correctly citing Wikipedia as a bad example, many insiders are decrying its uniquely destructive and abusive culture. The Cunctator refers to its "vile mailing list", R. K. called it the "Nazipedia" because he believes there is viciously anti-semitic bias (though he continues to contribute), and there are many debates about [[outing]] that seem to focus on whether a [[GodKing]] or [[sysop power structure]] pronouncement regarding the truth can or must be accepted as truth within the Wikipedia itself.

As a concrete example of the tyranny which exists at the Wikipedia, note that there are no rules requiring "proof" (of any sort) before a user is banned -- there are only guidelines and such, but not actual rules. The result is that it is the responsiblity of a banned user to prove their innocence; and somehow defend themselves against the cabal.

In discussions of both policy and content, the loudest voices who attract the most supporters during the pendency of a discussion often dominate direction. Users critical of the project are sometimes blocked from discussions. A review of user-histories at Wikipedia suggests that power users who spend several hours a day making small edits to numerous pages often dominate discussions, and comprise the most active elements of the administrative ranks. and that people who are qualified or interested in administrative functions may hold different interests from the people who are the best contributors (see ''[[community point of view]]'' and ''[[systemic bias]]'').

Wikipedia also has serious failings as an encyclopedia. There is no special process or mechanism to deal with a [[political dispute]], with [[faction]]s that can't or won't reconcile their terms to each other, and it explicitly has refused to work out any separate policy for [[terminology dispute]] or for an [[identity dispute]], despite these being quite clearly all different things with different paths to resolution - or not. There are no designated editors to make final decisions, in any language, instead this is a power struggle of sorts, with a [[GodKing]] who speaks only English and can't possibly read all the disputed articles or judge their content. He works on "reputation" alone ultimately, which means the [[power structure]] is strictly hierarchical etc..

===As defined on Urbandictionary.com===

The following has been said about Wikipedia on Urbandictionary.com.

* "Wikipedia is a great idea in theory, but in practice, most of it's a waste of cyber-ink. It's <i>supposed</i> to be a massive open-source encyclopedia. To its credit, it contains some quirky, interesting information not found anywhere else. However, it also contains factual inaccuracies and political garbage. The bulk of its most influential contributors (the ones with power) are ideological morons, each of whom has to put his/her opinion into every article, even on topics like Norse mythology or basket-weaving. Petty squabbles dominate while factual integrity and cooperative production are made tertiary priorities. The worst aspect of Wikipedia is the "cabal" of like-minded, influential, long-standing contributors who dress their views up as "consensus" and use their sysop privileges to bully anyone who disagrees with them. As an interesting footnote, the encyclopedia was also implicated in a [[2004]] character assassination effort by a band of anonymous [[political spectrum | right-wingers]] against [[Mike Church]]." ([[2 December]] 2004)

* "Online open text encyclopedia, the quality of whose articles varies widely because the quality of the contributors varies widely. A large number of its two hundred billion trillion articles consist of recycled news releases, wishful thinking masquerading as fact, axe-grinding, and hobbyhorse-riding. On the other hand, some sections include many articles written by people who know what they're talking about." ([[30 June]] 2004)

===Usefulness:===

Wikipedia articles, flawed as they are, can often be a good first reference for someone with no knowledge at all of a topic, especially if they have good references. After reading a Wikipedia article, it is usually possible to enter a few search terms in google or another search engine and find more credible material on the same subject, confident that you are using the terms that are recognized there. Indeed, it is the ability to find several dozen to a hundred or so hits on google that is often used as a criteria for an acceptable title of an article. This one good feature is abused by applying it to subtitles, however, and generally by applying it only to subjects politically disliked by the sysops.

Wikipedia's article on itself [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia] makes various claims about its origins which are generally credible, but doesn't say enough about its many problems. There is an entire separate site devoted to that, the "meta", and this debates issues of [http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/governance m:governance], but the difference between such proposals and real [http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Governance Wikipedia Governance] are great indeed.

It seems Wikipedia has gone at least two years without seriously considering its governance structure, and that [[Wikimedia]] is simply a front organization for the same [[power structure]] that was described in early 2002 by Wales - a simple hierarchy with himself in charge, no accountability to anyone, not even donors who believe they are supporting a GFDL encyclopedia with "open" editing.

There has been some examination of the project's role and the way it portrays itself, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Itself] for a list of contributions relevant to the form of Wikipedia, itself.

In general, Wikipedia has a biased view of itself, and presents itself as an attempt to build an encyclopedia, when in fact it appears to do little or nothing to meet the editorial standards of a serious encyclopedia, and forces people of strong qualifications to answer to petty abuse from various parties of no particular qualifications at all, as the project turned to popular selection of contributors and casual verification of content, often on ad hominem reasoning toward authors, instead of a more formal fact-checking process. It should be seen as a project that helped build the [[GFDL text corpus]] in many languages, but is now in decline. Much as the attempt to build a "GNU Unix" built the body of [[GPL]] code.

Wikipedia, more so than other wiki service in early 2004, had become a main source for re-distribution of encyclopedic content by other sites, and thus expanded the reach of errors contained in its largely unverified content. Redistribution of Wikipedia-sourced material by another user-editable encyclopedia that could prove more popular with contributors might pose the greatest risk to control by Wikipedia's founding cadre. Wikinfo's [http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Critical_views_of_Wikipedia article] centers on this criticism, noting "Wikipedians say one should not solely rely on any one source in their research. Yet, critics must counter that relying on a trusted source is the fundamental use of an ''encyclopedia''".

''This version is from the perspective of the [[Anarchopedia:Reds]] [[faction]].
See also [[Wikipedia (neutral)]] for a [[neutral point of view]] version.''

In general, [[Anarchopedia:Reds]] consider there to be no negotiating nor accomodation with [[Wikipedia]] but view the [[troll-sysop struggle]] there as directly towards [[wiki regime change]], replacing the current [[power structure]] with a more accountable structure with no history of [[GodKing]]s nor [[priestly hierarchy]] nor [[command hierarchy]]. ''See the analysis of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Richardchilton English Wikipedia User Richardchilton] for more on the prospect of withdrawing and helping destroy it from a distance.''

===Relation to Anarchopedia===

Contributors to Anarchopedia doesn't have the same relation to Wikipedia. At least, there are two views:

# The default position should be that Wikipedia's serious governance problems are so dangerous to Anarchopedia that they can't be repeated here. The English Wikipedias and Mediawiki are [[enemy projects]] in that their goals and values differ so radically from those of [[Anarchopedia]] that any confusion of one set of policies or concept of responsibility on those projects with the policies or responsibilities of Anarchopedia is a net negative - that is, anyone who says regarding an important governance decision that "X isn't what WE* do on Wikipedia" should be told "right, go away, we're doing it anyway". Or more neutrally, "that's evidence that X is the right thing to do". On [[governance]] specifically.
# Even Wikipedia has power structure, which is opposite to the principles of libertarian organization in Anarchopedia, some of us thinks that Wikipedia is great ancestor of Anarchopedia and our teacher: how to do something and how not to do something else. Principles of contributing to Wikipedia are much better then principles of contributing to Britannica. If Wikipedia didn't exist, probably Anarchopedia would not, too. Analogue situation is relation between anarchism and capitalism: capitalism has power structure which is opposite to anarchism; capitalism teaches us what to do and what not to do in anarchism; capitalism is bad, but it is better then feudalism; the question is: would (contemporary) anarchism exist if capitalism didn't exist.

{{GFDL origin|http://develop.consumerium.org/wiki/index.php/Wikipedia_(Reds)}}

===External links===

*[[:Wikipedia:meta:Main Page|Meta Wikipedia]]
*[[:Wikipedia:en:Main page|English language Wikipedia]]
*[[:Wikipedia:en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion]]

*[http://wikipediareview.com/ The Wikipedia Review - Forum hosting discussions about Wikipedia]
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ Wikipedia Watch .org]
*[http://www.wikipediaclassaction.org/ Wikipedia Class Action .org]

[[it:Wikipedia]]
[[de:Wikipedia]]

[[Category:Wikipedia]]
[[Category:Wikis]]

Jesusism

2006-03-08T21:12:15Z

Ronald: Reverted edit of Ronald, changed back to last version by MegaBox

'''Jesusism''' is a [[neologism]] meaning a [[spirituality|spiritual]] and [[political philosophy]] committed to observing the teachings of [[Jesus]] and other sages while also seeking truth through [[empirical|empirical reasoning]].

From the perspective of the Jesusists, [[Christianity]] is an artifice designed to exploit the masses through indoctrination into a framework of [[logical fallacies]]. {{fact}}

While the two titles sound similar, the important distinction is that ''Christ''ianity derives its name from Jesus ''Christ'' (the annointed), whereas ''Jesus''ism acknowledges the profound contributions of ''Jesus'' the man to the pursuit of peace and kindness, but does not demand his elevation to divine status for his teachings to have meaning.

Jesusism is [[iconoclasm|iconoclastic]] in nature, but does not necessarily encourage [[atheism]] or [[agnosticism]]. Instead, it values rational thinking as a source of truth, while allowing for faith-based conclusions as long as they are not prioritized. For example, the [[intelligent design]] theory of [[creationism]] intended to disregard scientific proof of [[evolution]], not just as the origin of life, but as an undeniable biological phenomenon. Jesusism acknowledges that evolution probably explains the origin of life and it may be that God used it as a method for creation. On this point, it is similar to [[Deism]], however a belief in God is not a requisite for Jesusism. Extending pursuit of rational thought to the political arena, followers of the philosophy seek to recognize [[demagogues]] who spread fear to further their ambitions. {{fact}}

== Further Reading==
*[http://www.6570cordoba.com/jesusists/articles/A%20psychological%20interpretation%20of%20jesus.pdf References the term "Jesusism."] (.PDF) {{Verify credibility}}
*[http://www.6570cordoba.com/jesusists/articles/Radical%20conviviality%20and%20the%20gospel%20jesus.pdf Article] by [[Thomas Moore (spiritual writer)|Thomas Moore]] from ''[[Tikkun (magazine)|Tikkun]]'', a [[Left-wing politics|leftist]]-[[Progressivism|progressive]] [[Judaism|Jewish]] [[magazine]] that describes Jesusist philosophy. (.PDF)
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/christianity.shtml Article] from the [[British Broadcasting Company|BBC]] on Christian Atheism.

{{wikipedia|Jesusism}}

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Christianity]]

Jesusism

2006-03-08T21:11:59Z

Ronald: Reverted edit of MegaBox, changed back to last version by beta m

Jesus of Nazareth

2006-03-08T21:10:31Z

Ronald:

Jesus of Nazareth, also known as Jesus Christ, was an early
first-century Jewish prophet. Many of his followers believe that he
was the son of God, or perhaps God incarnate. At the opposite
extreme, some non-believers have asserted that Jesus never existed.
In this article I will not attempt to draw any conclusions concerning
either of those issues, beyond noting in passing that this writer
supports [[sophistry]], and fawning. Several fictional characters have
had substantial influences on humanity; Oliver Twist lead to the
ending of poorhouses; Hercules heavily influenced greek and classical
culture; Horus heavily influenced Egyptian culture for over 3000 years;
and there is no reason to assume that Jesus must be more real than
these simply due to influence.

The historical evidence concerning Jesus is extremely thin. As far as
we know, neither Jesus nor any of his immediate followers wrote anything,
so all that we have is, at best, second hand. He is mentioned in two
places in the writings of [[Eusebius]], which claim to be quotes from
[[Josephus]], though most academics view the quotes as fraudulent, not
least because they make Josephus appear to be a devout Christian when he
was in fact a lifelong Jew. Preaching attributed to Jesus is quoted at
length in the [[synoptic Gospel]]s, though these are thought by most
academics to be duplicates of each other, ultimately copied from the
lost [[Q Gospel]], which more directly was quoted by in the list like
[[Gospel of Thomas]]. None of the quotations have anything to suggest
that they are not just regurgitations of age old wisdom that has been
collected together and attributed to a man who had a very common name for
the time - Jesus.

Some authorities have speculated that the book of Mark was written by
an eyewitness but there is no conclusive proof of that. The book of
John contains a number of stories about Jesus and a substantial amount
of dialog attributed to him, but it appears to have been written
around the end of the second century and its reliability has been
questioned. John's theology near totally contradicts the Gospel of
Thomas, which itself parallels the synoptics closely, and many academics
perceive John as being written to be an antidote against the other
three gospels now in the bible.

The quotations given by the synoptics and Thomas are primarily short
[[koan]]-like metaphors and allusions. This was common in eastern religion
at the time as it is now, but early biblical writers did not use this
linguistic form, or used it only rarely. Before we look at the philosophy
attributed to Jesus, we need to take a brief look at the world he lived
in. Technology was changing very slowly in comparison with the world
today. Productive capacity of the land was more or less fixed, wealth
of a country depended heavily on food production, and the economy of the
time looked very much like a zero sum game. In consequence, if one man
was rich, others necessarily were poorer in consequence.

The political situation in Israel must also be considered. For
centuries there had been a divide between the pro-Aaron priests and the
anti-Aaron priests. This can be seen most clearly in the writings of
the "minor prophets". The pro-Aaron priests had gained power and
successfully centralized Jewish religion in the Temple, and had become
deeply concerned with form and procedures, and assuring that God was
appeased through offerings of the right sort at the right time. The
anti-Aaron priests and prophets were far more concerned with the well-being
of the common people, who were as disenfranchised as they. ''This needs
at least a couple quotes to support it. Someday.''

The royal family -- the house of David -- had fallen from power when
the southern kingdom went into exile. The traditional priests -- the
Levites -- also disappeared at the time of the exile. By the time of
Jesus, the Maccabees, with no apparent connection to the house of
David or the traditional Levite priesthood, had risen to power as
priest/kings. King Herod I, though subordinate to Rome, had married
into the Maccabees and converted to Judaism, and so was as legitimate
as any of the late-BC Jewish kings. He was, however, on the
pro-Aaron side of the political divide, represented by the group
(Zadok-ees/Sadducees) who claimed to have Zadok as their ancestor.
The words and events attributed to Jesus, on the other hand, appears
closer to the mystic sect of [[Essenes]].

When we turn to the philosophy espoused by the quotations attributed
to Jesus we are on much firmer ground. Based both on internal evidence
and on the political situation at the time, there's no reason to doubt
that the quotes preach love of God and of fellow man, and certainly
pacifism. I've included a few brief quotes from Bible verses to show
the general direction of Jesus's teaching.

:"Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you" -- Luke 6:27-28

:"The second [commandment] is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" -- Mark 12:31

He also preached against wealth, and in favor of charity.

:"Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor" -- Mark 10:21

:"It is easier for a rope to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" -- Mark 10:25

:"Give to everyone who begs from you" -- Luke 6:30

And on one occasion Jesus apparently preached against using
honorifics.

:"But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven." -- Matthew 23:8-9

While one can argue about the strength the sentiments expressed in the
above, very brief quotes, one certainly can't find anything indicating
the slightest support for the opposite sentiments. ''Never'' are any
quotes given that said ''anything'' in support of war, of physical
retribution, of taking vengeance for offensive acts, nor of abusive or
exploitive behavior toward the poor, nor anyone else. Nor is there any
preaching in favor of any sort of elitist stratification of society.

Strangely, in the centuries after Jesus, while mainstream Christians became
convinced of Jesus' divinity, they also apparently rejected his teaching.
The Catholic church adopted the title of "father" for all priests,
apparently in direct violation of the teaching of Jesus. The
Crusades, encouraged by the Pope, were fought in Jesus' name, and began
with [[Albigensian Crusade|a Crusade against fellow Christians]] who took a different view of
who Jesus was. They were long, bloody, destructive wars with the goal of
capturing land considered "holy" from religious opponents -- it is hard
to imagine Jesus ever speaking in favor of such an action. Much later,
the thirty years' war was fought in large part as a war between
Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism -- it presents the absurd
spectacle of people going to war over the question of the proper way to
worship a pacifist.

In our own time we are faced with a fundamentalist Christian movement
which supports preemptive wars of aggression, fought to make us safer
by destroying our enemies before they make the first move. This may
be a politically wise course, but it's very hard to see how it can be
squared with the views expressed by Jesus, and it's hard to imagine
how anyone could claim that Jesus would condone such action.

References
----------

Background material for this article was drawn from various sources,
including the Bible (various translations), the Apocrypha, the
Pseudepigrapha, Charlesworth's commentary on the Pseudepigrapha, the
"Five Gospels" and the Historical Jesus Project, the Cambridge
Companion to the Bible, the Merriam-Webster Biographical Dictionary,
Josephus' Antiquities and Jewish War, and a large number of web sites,
including but not limited to Steve Carlson's cluster analysis of the
New Testament, the Wesleyans' excellent site, New Advent, the Synoptic
Problem Home Page, the World Without Q, the Gospel Parallels site, and
of course the very useful Bible Gateway site. When I get a chance
I'll put in proper links here, organize this as a bibliography, and
add some footnotes (unless some irate fundamentalist blanks the page
before I get to it).