The class warfare issue started when an admin (these are higher-level editors who have been given special superpowers, such as being able to protect, or lock down a page) noticed heavy activity on the Obama page. A flurry of edits -- often on mind-numbingly small details, such as whether to add a "Jr.," to Obama's name -- were constantly being made and then reverted by other editors, with no reason listed other than "sock puppet." A sock puppet is a false identity; essentially, people create sock puppets by registering as editors under a series of different names, usually for the purpose of hiding their identities or to build the appearance of consensus on an issue when there is really only one advocate.

The admin, suspecting some kind of trouble, put the Obama page into "semi-protection," that is locked it down temporarily in order to find out what was going on. This led to a serious of furious exchanges on the discussion page, with allegations of abuse of power by the admin, and anger that this had been done without bothering to understand that the "edit-warring" was not a real problem, but simply the result of (in what is so far the phrase of the year, and unlikely to be challenged for that title) "a rolling band of disruptive socks."

Things got even worse when another admin stopped by, studied the situation, and advised that the protection be taken off. The first admin agreed and lifted the lock. Now people began to call out the first admin for only listening to other admins. As one editor put it: "It is most definitely a good thing that us lowly plebeians don't have any pull with an elite admin like yourself. Imagine if you had to listen when uppity non-admins challenged your actions. That would be dreadfully unnerving, mixing with the baser classes and all." Heavens to Murgatroyd, what would Barack have to say about all this? (probably, "Uh, I don't use Jr. with my name. Thanks for asking.")

I think that it is an amazingly good sign that the Huffington Post is coming to the realization that Wikipedia is crap.

Or that it is run like crap.

The Post is a central gathering point for the media at this juncture. This kind of awareness raising is huge.

The Huffington Post has known for a while now.

How's that?

They have run critical stories on WP before. I'm sure we have had at least one prior thread on one of their stories, and they show up from time to time in the newsbot scrapings.

That's a really interesting article. The unnamed admin causing trouble in the article is the poodle's poodle himself, Jossi.

I'm familiar with the strange case of Jossi. Basically, he's a one-man Team Cult. He's a cultist himself, and he runs around supporting anyone accused (however rightly) of cultism. He is a frequent ally of Team Rand, of course, and has a special love for me, personally.

Al

This Ayn Rand fetishisation fascinates me. In the intellectual world I've visited through my life, if someone said they supported the ideologies of Ayn Rand, the response would be invariably "Who?" Then if they described the philosophies in detail, people would be sniggering and groaning with disbelief and the naivety that lies behind it. Just the nonsense of it.

Surely these ideas faded years ago? When it became apparent that John Forbes Nash was merely "bit confused", or when studies of human behaviour during the cold war were revealed to be deeply flawed, or at least when it became apparent that shock therapy economics had caused devastation in the former Soviet bloc and much of the third world. Mimbo Jimbo is just sooooo old maaan.

This Ayn Rand fetishisation fascinates me. In the intellectual world I've visited through my life, if someone said they supported the ideologies of Ayn Rand, the response would be invariably "Who?" Then if they described the philosophies in detail, people would be sniggering and groaning with disbelief and the naivety that lies behind it. Just the nonsense of it.

Surely these ideas faded years ago? When it became apparent that John Forbes Nash was merely "bit confused", or when studies of human behaviour during the cold war were revealed to be deeply flawed, or at least when it became apparent that shock therapy economics had caused devastation in the former Soviet bloc and much of the third world. Mimbo Jimbo is just sooooo old maaan.

Huffington Post has some observations on Wikipedia
And obstreperous Admins

Now I don't know what obstreperous means and my tiny pocket dictionary doesn't either, but it sounds bad... Scandalous, in fact!

In case people here didn't know Wales was a regular poster on the humanities.philosophy.objectivism Usenet group and apparently ran his own mailing list.

He was mentioned quite regularly there before the invention of Wikipedia LINK

His profile that lists all of his posts

Given that SV studied philosophy at Cambridge I imagine it is quite possible that she was a fellow poster on that group and/or a subscriber to Wales' mailing list.

Anyone wanting to know about this absolute nonsense Randian movement should look to the ridiculous Leonard Peikoff, head of the Ayn Rand institute.

Watch this long, but insane speech by the absurd Peikoff. At one point he advocates nuking the middle east.

I don't have a reference handy, but I seem to remember that Jimbo voluntarily hosted some Randist propaganda, even before WP. He's been in this cult for a while now.

Al

Given that SV studied philosophy at Cambridge I imagine it is quite possible that she was a fellow poster on that group and/or a subscriber to Wales' mailing list.

Der Jimbo certainly did. It was called "Moderated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy".

Nah. Randian hogwash doesn't have much currency outside the US. Certainly not at Cambridge. And SVs liberal-left, almost Trotskyite persona, alongside her interest in religion, is a far cry from Objectivism.