User:MastCell: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
this is too spot-on NOT to feature prominently
i like these enough to bring them back; or maybe i'm just feeling more cynical
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Quotation|In a practical, immediate way, one sees the limits of the so-called “extended mind” clearly in the mob-made Wikipedia, the perfect product of that new vast, supersized cognition: when there’s easy agreement, it’s fine, and when there’s widespread disagreement on values or facts, as with, say, the origins of capitalism, it’s fine, too; you get both sides. The trouble comes when one side is right and the other side is wrong and doesn’t know it. The Shakespeare authorship page and the Shroud of Turin page are scenes of constant conflict and are packed with unreliable information... Our trouble is not the over-all absence of smartness but the intractable power of pure stupidity, and no machine, or mind, seems extended enough to cure that.|[[Adam Gopnik]], [http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2011/02/14/110214crat_atlarge_gopnik "How the Internet gets inside us"]; ''[[New Yorker]]'', 14 February 2011}}
{{Quotation|In a practical, immediate way, one sees the limits of the so-called “extended mind” clearly in the mob-made Wikipedia, the perfect product of that new vast, supersized cognition: when there’s easy agreement, it’s fine, and when there’s widespread disagreement on values or facts, as with, say, the origins of capitalism, it’s fine, too; you get both sides. The trouble comes when one side is right and the other side is wrong and doesn’t know it. The Shakespeare authorship page and the Shroud of Turin page are scenes of constant conflict and are packed with unreliable information... Our trouble is not the over-all absence of smartness but the intractable power of pure stupidity, and no machine, or mind, seems extended enough to cure that.|[[Adam Gopnik]], [http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2011/02/14/110214crat_atlarge_gopnik "How the Internet gets inside us"]; ''[[New Yorker]]'', 14 February 2011}}

== The Cynic's Guide to Wikipedia ==

* If you wrestle with a pig, both of you will get muddy. And the pig will enjoy it.

* <tt>if $username =~ m/truth|justice|freedom|neutrality/i</tt>, then the account should probably be blocked preëmptively, because nothing constructive will ever come from it.

* If your edit sticks close to the original source, you will be accused of plagiarism. If your edit is paraphrased to avoid plagiarism, you will be accused of straying from the original source. Rinse and repeat.

* [[User talk:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo's talk page]] is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

* Anyone who edits policy pages to favor their position in a specific dispute has no business editing policy pages. Corollary: these are the only people who edit policy pages.

* Some people never do ''anything'' without an ulterior wikipolitical motive. That motive may not be clear immediately, but it will be clear eventually.

* The more a viewpoint is odious, ignorant, wrong-headed, or obscure, the more likely its adherents will perceive Wikipedia as their best opportunity to promote it.

* Anyone who defends their edits by citing [[WP:NOTCENSORED]] doesn't have the first clue.

* People who use "NPOV" as a verb are usually up to no good.

* Being blocked has never made anyone more civil. On many occasions, it has made people less civil. Nonetheless, our default approach to increasing the general level of civility is to block people.

* Wikipedia's processes favor pathological obsessiveness over rationality. A reasonable person will, at some point, decide that they have better things to do than argue with a pathological obsessive. Wikipedia's content reflects this reality, most acutely in its coverage of topics favored by pathological obsessives.

* Anything truly insightful has been said better, and earlier, by someone else.

Revision as of 18:14, 25 March 2011

In a practical, immediate way, one sees the limits of the so-called “extended mind” clearly in the mob-made Wikipedia, the perfect product of that new vast, supersized cognition: when there’s easy agreement, it’s fine, and when there’s widespread disagreement on values or facts, as with, say, the origins of capitalism, it’s fine, too; you get both sides. The trouble comes when one side is right and the other side is wrong and doesn’t know it. The Shakespeare authorship page and the Shroud of Turin page are scenes of constant conflict and are packed with unreliable information... Our trouble is not the over-all absence of smartness but the intractable power of pure stupidity, and no machine, or mind, seems extended enough to cure that.

The Cynic's Guide to Wikipedia

  • If you wrestle with a pig, both of you will get muddy. And the pig will enjoy it.
  • if $username =~ m/truth|justice|freedom|neutrality/i, then the account should probably be blocked preëmptively, because nothing constructive will ever come from it.
  • If your edit sticks close to the original source, you will be accused of plagiarism. If your edit is paraphrased to avoid plagiarism, you will be accused of straying from the original source. Rinse and repeat.
  • Anyone who edits policy pages to favor their position in a specific dispute has no business editing policy pages. Corollary: these are the only people who edit policy pages.
  • Some people never do anything without an ulterior wikipolitical motive. That motive may not be clear immediately, but it will be clear eventually.
  • The more a viewpoint is odious, ignorant, wrong-headed, or obscure, the more likely its adherents will perceive Wikipedia as their best opportunity to promote it.
  • Anyone who defends their edits by citing WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't have the first clue.
  • People who use "NPOV" as a verb are usually up to no good.
  • Being blocked has never made anyone more civil. On many occasions, it has made people less civil. Nonetheless, our default approach to increasing the general level of civility is to block people.
  • Wikipedia's processes favor pathological obsessiveness over rationality. A reasonable person will, at some point, decide that they have better things to do than argue with a pathological obsessive. Wikipedia's content reflects this reality, most acutely in its coverage of topics favored by pathological obsessives.
  • Anything truly insightful has been said better, and earlier, by someone else.