- Messages
- 916
We have various wikis like this throughout the Internet, but they tend to have a narrow focus. E.g., Abd's wiki deals mostly with situations he's been involved in.
The initial set of leaders of the wiki would be as follows. Any user who's been globally banned from Wikimedia sites would be allowed to become a bureaucrat of this wiki, and any user who's been ArbCom-banned from Wikipedia would be allowed to become an admin of this wiki. The idea would be to turn upside-down the hierarchy that exists on Wikipedia and put the dissidents in power on this wiki, so that they could mold its culture.
The primary means of resolving disputes would be to create POV forks. So for example, if there are people who complain Wikipedia is too politically incorrect, they could have an "SJW criticisms of Wikipedia" article, and those who complain Wikipedia is too politically correct could have an "alt-right criticisms of Wikipedia" or "racist criticisms of Wikipedia" or "criticisms that Wikipedia is too politically correct" article, or whatever the case might be in their view.
The problem is, I'm not sure it's really possible to have all those groups coexist on the same wiki, because normally what people want to do is have a wiki just devoted to their own philosophy, and kick out all those who disagree and delete their content. They worry, "I don't want to be associated with those who are philosophically opposed to me on x issue, by editing the same wiki as them."
If people could handle being in close proximity to those who are outspoken about their opposing views, we probably wouldn't have so many users who are banned from Wikipedia, and thus a wiki like this wouldn't have such a need to exist.
I've run dissident wikis before, and the opposing side generally isn't able to act in an open-minded way about their disagreements. They usually just want to vandalize it or something, to impress their peeps, as opposed to getting into an intellectual discussion which might made them seem uncool or unsavory by association.
People want to belong to a group, which tends to require adopting the ideology of the group. What happens if someone adopts a bit of ideology x and a bit of ideology y? They might find themselves ideologically homeless, a misfit in both groups. Therefore, they have to be closed-minded and say, "I'm not ready to accept that any of what you say is true, unless my group adopts the same sentiment" since the group, to maintain cohesion, has to enforce some ideological discipline upon its members and say, "If you don't support our program, then get out."
If you're the type to question everything, then you're probably going to find yourself all alone, because the search for truth can be pretty lonely. At best, you may be able to have one-on-one conversations with various people, behind closed doors, where their social circle isn't around to say anything disapproving about their heterodox views. That's one of the few ways you get to have a truly open-minded discussion.
Maybe online, at places like r/changemyview, people can anonymously be open-minded, but I suspect that the average person posting there is some kind of social misfit because they have a lot of unusual views expressed there. If you have an unusual opinion, at best it makes you some kind of nerd (because you're using your brain rather than going with what will make you popular) and at worst it makes you some kind of heathen or apostate.
There's always a tension between the need to have social cohesion, based on a common culture, and the need to be open-minded and willing to accept new truth. Truth has to start in the mind of an individual, and basically the way our society is set up now, is that if you're an individual who wants to put forth a dissident idea and try to get it accepted by the masses, you have to pay a heavy toll (and maybe make some other people pay a toll, too).
Let's say you have some dissident manifesto or creed you want to publish; you may not be able to do so on a mainstream platform like WordPress anymore. And you have to be careful what opinions you document or express on Wikipedia articles and talk pages, respectively, too, or you could get hit with various sanctions. I mean, look what happened to this guy, for instance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TimesOfIndiana
Basically what society says is, "If you really believe in your ideas strongly, then you need to practically lay down your life for the cause; you need to sacrifice whatever social and professional life you may have, because we're going to take all that away from you as the price of going against the mainstream ideology." Of course, if you do this, people may say that you're some kind of loser at best or nutcase at worst. (Actually, I'm not sure which is worse, because people do have a certain amount of respect for high-functioning nutcases.)
I can't even keep straight the names of these people who are always griefing Abd wherever he goes, but why can't they just have a civilized conversation with him? Probably because associating with him in that way would make them seem "uncool". It's just junior high school all over again. Even if people would, deep down, tend to respect your nerdiness, they still have to act like they think you're some kind of loser in order to seem cool. They still have to put a "kick me" sign on your back, as a way of bonding with their friends over shared persecution and seeming cool. In some cases, they might have a one-on-one civilized conversation with the nerd if the rest of the social group is absent, but if the group happens to unexpectedly show up, that's when they punch him in the arm and act like that's the only reason they were seen in close proximity.
There's always going to be some kind of concern about, "What kind of message does this search for the truth send?" It's like when there was controversy about whether medical cannabis research should be allowed. People were like, "We don't want to send a message to young people that pot is medicine." The search for the truth is generally NOT the highest value people and groups have; a sense of belonging, and social cohesion, respectively, are. Conformity is enforced to create a sense of shared identity and purpose.
The initial set of leaders of the wiki would be as follows. Any user who's been globally banned from Wikimedia sites would be allowed to become a bureaucrat of this wiki, and any user who's been ArbCom-banned from Wikipedia would be allowed to become an admin of this wiki. The idea would be to turn upside-down the hierarchy that exists on Wikipedia and put the dissidents in power on this wiki, so that they could mold its culture.
The primary means of resolving disputes would be to create POV forks. So for example, if there are people who complain Wikipedia is too politically incorrect, they could have an "SJW criticisms of Wikipedia" article, and those who complain Wikipedia is too politically correct could have an "alt-right criticisms of Wikipedia" or "racist criticisms of Wikipedia" or "criticisms that Wikipedia is too politically correct" article, or whatever the case might be in their view.
The problem is, I'm not sure it's really possible to have all those groups coexist on the same wiki, because normally what people want to do is have a wiki just devoted to their own philosophy, and kick out all those who disagree and delete their content. They worry, "I don't want to be associated with those who are philosophically opposed to me on x issue, by editing the same wiki as them."
If people could handle being in close proximity to those who are outspoken about their opposing views, we probably wouldn't have so many users who are banned from Wikipedia, and thus a wiki like this wouldn't have such a need to exist.
I've run dissident wikis before, and the opposing side generally isn't able to act in an open-minded way about their disagreements. They usually just want to vandalize it or something, to impress their peeps, as opposed to getting into an intellectual discussion which might made them seem uncool or unsavory by association.
People want to belong to a group, which tends to require adopting the ideology of the group. What happens if someone adopts a bit of ideology x and a bit of ideology y? They might find themselves ideologically homeless, a misfit in both groups. Therefore, they have to be closed-minded and say, "I'm not ready to accept that any of what you say is true, unless my group adopts the same sentiment" since the group, to maintain cohesion, has to enforce some ideological discipline upon its members and say, "If you don't support our program, then get out."
If you're the type to question everything, then you're probably going to find yourself all alone, because the search for truth can be pretty lonely. At best, you may be able to have one-on-one conversations with various people, behind closed doors, where their social circle isn't around to say anything disapproving about their heterodox views. That's one of the few ways you get to have a truly open-minded discussion.
Maybe online, at places like r/changemyview, people can anonymously be open-minded, but I suspect that the average person posting there is some kind of social misfit because they have a lot of unusual views expressed there. If you have an unusual opinion, at best it makes you some kind of nerd (because you're using your brain rather than going with what will make you popular) and at worst it makes you some kind of heathen or apostate.
There's always a tension between the need to have social cohesion, based on a common culture, and the need to be open-minded and willing to accept new truth. Truth has to start in the mind of an individual, and basically the way our society is set up now, is that if you're an individual who wants to put forth a dissident idea and try to get it accepted by the masses, you have to pay a heavy toll (and maybe make some other people pay a toll, too).
Let's say you have some dissident manifesto or creed you want to publish; you may not be able to do so on a mainstream platform like WordPress anymore. And you have to be careful what opinions you document or express on Wikipedia articles and talk pages, respectively, too, or you could get hit with various sanctions. I mean, look what happened to this guy, for instance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TimesOfIndiana
Basically what society says is, "If you really believe in your ideas strongly, then you need to practically lay down your life for the cause; you need to sacrifice whatever social and professional life you may have, because we're going to take all that away from you as the price of going against the mainstream ideology." Of course, if you do this, people may say that you're some kind of loser at best or nutcase at worst. (Actually, I'm not sure which is worse, because people do have a certain amount of respect for high-functioning nutcases.)
I can't even keep straight the names of these people who are always griefing Abd wherever he goes, but why can't they just have a civilized conversation with him? Probably because associating with him in that way would make them seem "uncool". It's just junior high school all over again. Even if people would, deep down, tend to respect your nerdiness, they still have to act like they think you're some kind of loser in order to seem cool. They still have to put a "kick me" sign on your back, as a way of bonding with their friends over shared persecution and seeming cool. In some cases, they might have a one-on-one civilized conversation with the nerd if the rest of the social group is absent, but if the group happens to unexpectedly show up, that's when they punch him in the arm and act like that's the only reason they were seen in close proximity.
There's always going to be some kind of concern about, "What kind of message does this search for the truth send?" It's like when there was controversy about whether medical cannabis research should be allowed. People were like, "We don't want to send a message to young people that pot is medicine." The search for the truth is generally NOT the highest value people and groups have; a sense of belonging, and social cohesion, respectively, are. Conformity is enforced to create a sense of shared identity and purpose.