|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
CLoM » A small collection
A small collection
[ main page ]
Today our update is a collection of excerpts from posts that are incomplete, docked, or fictional. I like most of these, but they are not connected to anything. Literally, anything. This probably isn't a real update, but it made me smile so it can't be all bad.
THE BIG DEBATE, PART 1
GROUPS OF PEOPLE
There is consensus that votes shouldn’t be considered an indicator of consensus. Not that we voted on that.
...
NO ONE NEEDS WEBCAMS THAT MUCH. STOP PUTTING WEBCAMS ON EVERYTHING.
...
The same thing happens with “group compositions” — by which I mean any creative work which involves the pooled contributions of many people. RationalWiki would be an example, but it’s a pretty broad definition, and things like death metal bands and multinational corporations also qualify. To prove my point, here is a death metal band singing about multinational corporations[1]. That proves everything I was talking about.
...
If you work on a large project and your role is quite loosely defined, you might feel like you should sway the project itself towards an ideal you like — which might not bear much resemblance towards the project as it stands. An example of this would be editors of Wikipedia who feel it is necessary to move the project away from what it is — possibly by increasing the care paid to individual articles (as opposed to always expanding without getting carried away by the details) or by making the criteria for contributors more strict.
These people have attached themselves to a project which already has hard definitions of what is allowed and approved (ie, anonymous contributions are welcome, a pragmatic non-rigorous attitude towards research and citation is encouraged) but wish to change these definitions rather than begin a new project with their own values in mind. It is quite strange behavior, really. It implies that they find it unthinkable to leave the project itself. It implies that their alliance to the project isn’t really connected to its objective definition. You might not find that interesting, but I do.
ROBOT CICERO
02.2 = [02.2.1] + [02.2.2] + [02.2.3]
02.2.1 = “Can’t you see ” / “When will you learn ” / “How long until you realize ” / “Why can’t you accept that ”
02.2.2 = “authoritarianism doesn’t solve anything?” / “this elite group is only a puppet of Nx?” / “no one cares about your sad little internet fanclub?”
02.2.3 = “For fucks sake.” / “Wankers.” / “Prick.” / “Fuck off.” / “Fuck you.” / “Fascist cunt.” / “Piss off.” / “Twat.”
THE BIG DEBATE, PART 2
A NORMAL CONVERSATION / REWRITING ATLAS SHRUGGED
“Read the sign on my desk, Ed.”
“'International President'”
“Now read the sign on your desk.”
“...I don't have a desk.”
“Exactly.”
LIST OF PEOPLE WITH NO LEGAL NAME
This one was a bit of a non-starter to be honest.
THE BIG DEBATE, PART 3
It is frightening how little of this is invented. On a side note, I really think CLoM should have more fictional updates. It would be good for my random highlight template to have a few quotes from things that do not exist. I approve of this idea.
[ main page ]
Talk
I like this one. The part about Wikipedia is very interesting, and I do agree that people want to change the project's direction but aren't willing to start another one (with a few exceptions, like Larry Sanger and Andy Schlafly). However, I think that there is a good reason for this: people recognize that WP is already an enormous stockpile of information, and they think (correctly) that it would much easier to convince people to change their tune a little instead of starting a whole new wiki from scratch. Tetronian you're clueless 11:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)