I've been swapping some e-mails with Jimmy Wales, and in one of them he wrote:

Keep in mind that I strongly dispute the New Yorker's version of the events in question, and so drawing too many conclusions from that is something you should be careful about.

I've asked Wales to give me his version and point me to whatever he's written that aims to correct The New Yorker's version, including any letter he's written to the editor of The New Yorker. In the meantime, I thought I'd ask here whether someone can point me to his explanations. I went to his user page at Wikipedia, but searching it is either impossible or I just don't know how to do it.

Presumably he disputes that Essjay had lied about his credentials.

Actually, no need for anyone to respond. I went and did some research (which I should have done before posting my query here). David Sanger nailed the weasel to the cross.

Larry Sanger, maybe?

Anyway, I cannot BELIEVE that Jimbo would already be backpedaling to a new version of "the truth", after he screwed up and apologized publicly back in March or April. Only a few months have gone by, and already he's got in his mind that he was in the right, and a Pulitzer-winning journalist somehow misrepresented the situation.

Maybe Durova is Jimbo.

Greg

What Jimmy says varies from one person to another, from one email to another, from one moment to another..... etc.

Read: He's not stable, or consistent in his opinion. Even on unimportant things (though this is fairly important).

Therefore: I wouldn't believe what he's saying to you here at all. Especially if he feels you have some leverage in the tech sector (read: investment capital, read: Wikia funding), as you've implied you do, he'll spin it all "Speciall! Just for You!" and put a big bow on it. Personally, I find it heartening that you are seeking a second opinion, and aren't taking it as some sign that you are a special person he tells the real monty to.

Just remember that his responses were:

• 1. First response: "SO??" (with clear statements that he knew everything all along) and when dozens of the doyens of journalism screeched in anger, it became,
• 2. Second response: "gosh, I was in India where I couldnt get internet, and I've just realized what a horrible thing this is, and asked Ryan Jordan to resign" and remember he was in Tidal Park, Chennai, Tamilnadu, the one place in all of internet-starved India where there is scads of broadband (it is the government's model IT park, even better than Bangalore), so that his excuse for his first response is full of crap too. You can verify this on Google, just look up "wales wikicamp 2007".
• 3. Third response: What he's now telling you. Then context it (as you have) that he's backtracking and claiming that the NewYorker is making up stuff, and you've got a recipe for a double-dealing porn salesman, trying to look like he's quit, but he's still selling smut.

What he's doing with you is incredibly serious. I hope you are someone in a position of investment capital power, and you can do something with this. It isn't often that someone catches him like you've done.

Oh, and Jimbo reads Wikipedia Review, so be clear that he knows that you are discussing this here, and that you cut and pasted his emails, so dont be surprised when he isn't as friendly. I'm assuming he doesn't need your favor for money or something. If he does need your good graces, his response will be something interesting and kind of fun. Visualize a pig stuck under a hole in a fence, wiggling and wiggling his way out, and trying to not get more mud on himself.

Well the ability to parse the truth and swap in and out is very similar, though I'm sure they are different people, I have to say one thing.

When I read her ED article, something really jumped out at me, and that was that she didn't like people to get federal assistance for landslide housing disasters.

Jimbo has made similar statements to this effect, though I think it was for flood or hurricaine damage. I remembered it from a long time ago, and just looked for some quote from him on this, but couldnt easily find it. Maybe he oversighted it. Wouldve been wise.

Anyways, it was an unusual link between them.

Besides the fact that they are both big liars. Brazen ones too.

I think what you're referring to is what happened after the December 2004 earthquake/tsunami in Southeast Asia, where Jimbo opposed having a message on the site directing people where they could go to donate for disaster relief, but then (I think--this is kinda fuzzy by now) backed down and let the message go up. An argument was made that Jimbo opposed having the message because of his Randite beliefs, although I don't think he ever directly said that--he's pretty careful about not putting those kinds of views on display, for obvious reasons.

Before I saw your reply, my immediate reaction was "yes, Randists don't believe in that sort of thing". I'm wondering more and more if the rot at the heart of Wikipedia is Jimbo.

Al

I read somewhere that someone (a member of this board, I believe) talked to Jimbo on the telephone and Jimbo said something to the effect that he didn't think the feds should have helped the Katrina victims in New Orleans.

No need to worry, because Bush didn't help them much at all.

Worry not. I've had my ass kissed from so many different angles it's covered with calluses. As for the managers of technology companies, well, the way to tell if they're lying is to check to see if their lips are moving. In the past couple days of reading up on the guy, Wales comes across as the archetypal tech executive. I used to get really mad at these people. Now I tend to either laugh or throw shit at them until they cry uncle and speak a sentence or two of the truth. Believe it or not, sometimes it happens. It's a beautiful thing, too.


That's funny. Of course, you know that if they did a "C" round for serious dough it wouldn't be the pig under the fence but more like the pig in Deliverance. I've seen that kind of crap from Silicon Valley for a long time. I want to wear a goddamn space suit every time I go there so none of it splashes on me. But seriously, I don't have that much pull. About all I can really do is make some calls and get hold of the Series A documents and maybe the Power Points and see what they might say about his plan to capitalize on the efforts of all those Wikiserfs. Have those documents been published anywhere? I don't want to do all of this for nothing.

Yeah, Larry. Sorry, my bad. I suck at names.


If he's a Rand-ite, then trust me he fits right into Silicon Valley. That place is the selfishness capital of the universe.

Al, you are still wondering? How much more evidence do you need to make up your mind?



Greg

The termofart yer luking fer here is Randy …

Jonny

That must take quite some loofah to fix.

My first thought was that Silicon Valley execs found a way to talk without moving their lips (speech recognition technology, etc) and then I 'got' it.

No! Meg Whitman used to sell porn too? (Goes off in the corner and cries). Just kidding.

Actually, he's more lowbrow than most SV execs (SV as in Silicon Valley, not Slimvirgin, the supposed spy working on Wikipedia as an admin), and I don't only mean because of his porn star past. Wales stays in fleabag motels, while traveling and is notoriously scrimpy about money. That's not usual.

Now THATS my kind of job. Are you hiring? (just kidding).

Your WELCOME! But if you must know.... Bimbo, oops, Jimbo is not my first pig....

Ok, now THATS funny.
No, they aren't anywhere I could find easily. I'd look here on the bvp Bessemer Venture Capital partners portfolio page. I have problems with javascript, and I cant get the stuff to launch. You give it a try. Jeremy Levine is their investment partner contact; Here is Jeremy Levine's Portfolio, including Wikia. Levine controls about 2 billion or so. Also Pierre Omidyar (and his "Omidyar Network").

Other places to look, or just watch. The wikia pipermail page. I started you at the first date of launch, December 24th. If it is anything like Wikipedia, they'll practically tell you when they are going to the bathroom. Probably not as bad as Wikipedia, so dont be afraid...

Here's Jimbos other buddies (announced in the Amazon Series B financing rollout).



I looked on the SEC EDGAR website, and found the document control numbers (DCMs) for the two Wikia investment filings, but I couldnt figure out how to download the files. Anyone here is welcome to help. Ive got some stuff to do.

WIKIA filings decriptors in SEC database. Full docs not here, just the document numbers.

(WIKIA) DOCUMENT CONTROL NUMBER 06064930 - Notice of Sale of Securities [Regulation D and Section 4(6) of the Securities Act of 1933], item 06 Acc-no: 9999999997-06-050100 (34 Act) 2006-12-18 021-86251

(WIKIA) DOCUMENT CONTROL NUMBER 06023890 - Notice of Sale of Securities [Regulation D and Section 4(6) of the Securities Act of 1933], item 06
Acc-no: 9999999997-06-005637 (34 Act) 2006-02-06 021-86251

What's needed for Pwok is to lok up DCM numbers, 06064930 and 06023890 in the SEC Edgar database.

Thats all for now. I've got some real stuff to write. Hasta.

Here's some parting thoughts, in memory of Bimbo.

And the classic Silicon Valley pig (just got back from Nordstrom, Palo Alto)

You have to mail, fax, or e-mail a request to the SEC, if you want paper copies mailed to you (for a modest fee).

Greg

Well, you better suit up in your aluminized nylon jumper, Pwok. Here's a recent quip from Mumbo Jimbo:



Tut, tut. P'shaw, p'shaw. I'm not here to make money from your free labor. I'm here to offer you a community of great thinkers who will produce a free product which I will endeavor not to profit from, but by nature of my being at the top of the food-chain, I probably won't be able to help myself from reaping more from the project than any of you individuals will.

Tell me, when are we going to see an automobile or an airplane constructed on a "level playing field" by a volunteer community? Will it be street-legal? Airworthy?

Jimbo never ceases to amaze with his smoke, mirrors, and love of the "free".

Greg

Down with Jimbo?



Ok, ok, I admit it; I'm a bit slow.

While I'm hesitant to blame systemic problems on individuals, the individuals who have the most control over the system are fair targets for a substantial share of the blame. Jimbo is not the sole cause of Wikipedia's problems, but it's starting to look like he's standing in the way of any path out of its current pit.

Rand's libertrianism was recently summarized on the Review as being a sort of anarchistic right-wing political stance, and it's Jimbo's commitment to this anarchism that's causing so much of the problem. Wikipedia is not a world of its own, free from outside influences. It is made possible only by the real world, and it in turn has the ability to affect it, often harmfully. Whatever Wikipedia is, it must first comply with the relevant laws. Yes, one path would be identifying all editors, but I suspect that cure would be worse than the disease.

The problem isn't with the faceless rabble, but with the unconstrained power of the administrators. The policies they're supposed to enforce are inconsistent, ephemeral and often at odds with legality. Then again, they hardly observe the rules except in ignoring them, and there is no accountability, no recourse, and no semblance of justice. Any movement towards making Wikipedia legit would start with a clean sweep of Wikia and of the admins.

No, Jimbo isn't the heart of all evil, but so long as he remains, it is an indication that Wikipedia has not commitment to being legit.

Al

De facto religion



Well, Randist libertarianism is the de facto political religion of the software world. Perhaps this is because it's so heavily associated with science fiction (which is, incidentally, the only place that libertarianism actually works). So, yes, there are plenty of Randists and fellow travelers in the valley, but that doesn't mean everyone in the industry is a mindless Randroid. Or does it?

Ultimately, as much as we might gain some insight into Jimbo's nebulous movitations by looking at his acknowledged political biases, we have to recognize that he is personally accountable for his interpretation of these dogmas and, subsequently, for his actions. I doubt he could argue with this. After all, isn't libertarianism all about personal accountability?

Al

Full disclosure:
Back when I edited WP, I frequently butted heads with Team Rand, although I was eventually taken down primarily by The Snippies, which is a faction of pro-circumcision zealots associated largely with Team Israel. Even now, people who oppose Team Rand face the risk of being accused of being my sock puppets, which is a backhanded tribute of sorts.

Careful writing stuff like that — they'll accuse you of being the sockpuppetmaster of us all …

Jonny

It would not only ruin Wikipedia, but it would create an army of Daniel Brandt style victims.

Yes, but the problem is usually called vandalism. The threat and danger of abuse of power is barely mentioned, even in the Wikiscanner episode (and we're all waiting to see what wikisleuth-aka-checkuser-abuse Durova pulls with it).
Agreed.

I've worked in the Valley, and I never got the Rand vibe. Crass materialism, and naked power lunching (and not in the good way), yes. Maybe I ran in the wrong circles, but as I knew it, the old religion and politics not discussed thing held true.

Say what? Perhaps I was out of the geek mainstream (or too much in it) to realize that I was supposed to be a Randian. Ah! That's what I was doing wrong. lol.

Well, yeah. That's part of growing up. I think he forgot that part.

I think that to Jimbo, libertarianism is about doing what Jimbo wants, when Jimbo wants, to whom Jimbo wants, and feeling just fine being Jimbo. I doubt it has much to do with Ayn Rand whatsoever. Rand's theories were very time specific, and dont translate well to the now (or as you put it, beyond science fiction).

GOD that is a funny sentence. Thank you.



Ok, Pwok, that's all you.

I'm used to being able to buy stuff online, and if it was a few bucks, I would have sprung for it. Snailmail I'm not a fan.

They already have!

And, to be specific, "they" means Praboviouac. Hi, Pro! How's WR treating you? Having fun with your silent stalking and bogus linguistic analysis? Thought so, Timmy.

Al

Agreed. As I said elsewhere, accountability does not conflict with anonymity. However, anonymity is necessary for privacy, and there can be no free speech without privacy.



Right, vandalism is the excuse for all the abuses. The reality is that vandalism could be curtailed with a few simple changes, including requiring users to log in, but limiting the posting power of new accounts until they gradually prove themselves. With vandalism muted, the more serious problem of cabals and corrupt admins would come to the forefront.



That holds true all over the place. However, it's not hard to ferret out people's ideologies because they are implicit in the unspoken premises of their arguments. Consider the case of someone arguing against coding standards on the theory that they represent "initiating force". Ding; we've got ourselves a Randroid!



Now you know, so go back and beat up some whim-worshippers and commies, eh?



It's the part that Randists generally forget, often because they've yet to grow up, themselves. This is understandable, since so many of them are still in their teens or barely out of them.

Randism uses the concept of personal responsibility as a weapon against others, raising it as an excuse for why we shouldn't help people in need, but stops short of applying it to the actions of Randists themselves.



I'm just going to quote those words without further comment.



You laugh, and yet it's my identification of that cabal that got me banned for life. Then again, it is pretty funny, seen from the outside. For the record, my favorite member of the Snippies is Jakew, who's big on other people's penises but has some sort of anti-foreskin fetish. He's a single-topic POV warrior whose commitment to abolishing turtlenecks is second to none.

Al

Of course. With the freedom that employers have in the United States (or anywhere, really, even with strong workers rights), what you say will be judged. It is infinitely human to judge. There seems to be a dream among non-anonymity-people that if you are open about your identity, that acceptance will follow, and I keep trying to drive it home that this is an idealistic dream. Human beings are far too, well, human. It's also my philosophy with incentives that I've put forth here, related to why Wikipedia management (the Foundation - or "Jimbo", if you will) needs either a carrot or a stick to get their shit act together and cut out the crap nonsense.

Ah. I see here an incentive to NOT effectively attack vandalism.

I consider this to be true even of people without hidden agendas, or rather, a political orientation can be suggested from mere personal beliefs. Since in the US we aren’t very prone to viewing things from a political orientation (we see that as being prejudiced, rather than being indicative, as opposed to other cultures, which view such categorization as a matter of course), so you get many people who have beliefs that would place them in a political grouping, but even they aren’t aware of it. If you know what I mean. That isn’t the case with your Randian examples, but it is what I’ve observed. For your Randian groupings, what I’ve noticed (especially on Wikipedia) is that some of the Randites create new beliefs in an effort to be accepted. Mostly by Jimbo.

This is why I found Durova’s landslide statement so striking (also, I hadnt correlated them with Randism). The correlation with Jimbo’s statement shouted out to me that she wants Jimbo to like her (and hire her to replace Essjay). In fact, everything she does shouts that out, with a giant virtual megaphone. And if she called for Essjay’s immediate removal, it wasn’t out of principle. She wanted his job. I harp on her a lot because she’s irritatingly false and dishonest, and seems to be the current worst of the bunch (but then, I never duked it out with the snippies, as you put it, lol). I haven’t had direct conflicts much really, possibly as I don't take most people on Wikipedia very seriously, and therefore I'd bow out before it got ugly, because it wasn't worth the trouble. It was my insider experience of calumny which turned me off, rather than a personal bad experience.

QUESTION: Does anyone here suppose that Bush lack of response to Katrina was Rand-related? I'd always thought it was sheer incompetence, but then I assume Occam's razor, as I find it to explain much. Still, the comments here make me wonder.

See, to me, this exemplifies a complete lack of understanding of many things, among them coding principles (though I’ve been out of that game for ages, things don’t change that much). Coding standards is a misleading term. What is truly a “standard” is what the compiler will machine-interpret and accept or reject, and/or use to complete an instruction as the programmer intended. Anything else is merely a guideline, no matter if it is called a standard, or if it has an ISO or IEEE or IEC number affixed to it (especially if it has such a number affixed to it, in fact). The term “standard” has been tortured to the point of a joke, actually, and I refer to the ISO 9000 standards, for example, which were the biggest boondoggle in business after the Y2K debacle. Just a means of milking companies for consulting fees that returned little to nothing. But don’t get me started.
Perhaps that’s a facet of Randism that I never noticed (as I really didn’t notice them at all). Misinterpretation of facts. Most people I know/knew who were at the programming level were truly bright and open and intelligent, and weren’t prone to such blather. At the business level, I noticed Repubicanism and materialism, but never this weird kind of slotting of facts into the Ayn Rand framework. Again, perhaps I was lucky in who I met, or maybe I was attracted to bright, open people, even if some of them were more selfish or materialistic (as we all are, in varying degrees). It is amazing to me that I've missed this, really. I'm well read on politics and political theory. I'm thinking that this might be a drawback, as the impression I have of Randists is that they are expressly ill-educated, as like Jimbo, they torture Rand's theories to suit their own ends (which is apparently sort of the spirit of Randism, i.e. suiting your own ends, though the intent was probably not to distort Ayn's theories, per se).
Hm. Not really. Again, I didn’t experience that as much.
The closest I came to that was a friend (originally Republican, wealthy family) who started spouting about anarchism to me in the 1990s. I think that this would have been the Randism you spoke of, and he probably got it from his company, which was a pretty big hi-tech consulting firm. I commented dryly that since he’d single handedly opened several offices abroad for his fast-growing company (he was an engineer, but a high-level executive) that if his company's establishments were nationalized then “who you gonna call?”, and suddenly government would be pretty important to him. He had no answer for that (rightly so). That made him quiet down about anarchism (certainly to me). That and he married a beautiful young French girl he met in the Valley, and suddenly he was out attending anti-war marches, and voting Democratic. Funny how that worked.

Again, I hadn’t noticed it before in the Valley. I noticed the selfishness on the Republican side of things. This seems to be very Californian; they aren’t really political, like the East coast is. They are more financial, as a point of emphasis.

I take that as a high compliment. I’m sure he’ll read this, and wonder who I am, and he’ll never figure it out because I would never have criticized him (as I never do in professional life either). I did get sick of this aspect of his personality, moreso than I would have with a real professional contact, given the absolute power imbued in his position, and how he flaunts and bandies it about.

I think it is impressive that you can make humor out of what was probably a nasty onslaught. And really, it is funny, when you step out of the part where you got attacked. Its not very much in reality – and I mean that towards them.


Again, thank you for bringing a smile to my face. Comments like this make me glad I’m part of Wikipedia Review, because I never noticed it on Wikipedia (you cant notice everything esp. if you have a life). Such happenings are high camp. I hope you can let go of the anger and see that for what it is. A joke.

Sure, but it's even worse than that. Aside from the obvious threat to an editor's career, there's also their safety. I spent a lot of time on Abortion and Christianity. I'm not sure I'd have felt safe doing that if my name was attached to each post. Hell, it's not even safe to admit to being an atheist these days.

Aside from money and safety, there's the personal factor. For example, if you're a teen, do you really want your parents to know how familiar you are with human sexuality? Do you want your friends to realize how big an Everquest geek you are? The list is as endless as your imagination.

Ultimately, privacy is an absolute requirement, but it has to be accomplished in a way that allows for accountability and doesn't break the law.

Al

Completely agreed.

The biggest anti-anonymity proponents on this board use anonymous logins all the time (to avoid bans, or to make alternative points of view without having to cop for them), and I'm not talking about the Wikipedian false accusations of socks (accusations of which there are too many). WR has been storied (by Wikipedia folklore) for having some people (the most famous WR old timers) with several logins. I really dont care, personally, but that's what some people on Wikipedia say (among other criticisms, most of which are bogus).

You can say "I had to use a fake login, to get around the ban" or whatever other excuse, but let's face it, if you ever once in your life use a masking login, you can't in good faith back up your claim that anonymity is useless.

I thought so !!! — it's all about the Czech !!!

What is the Czech ??? Who is the Czech ???

Xactly !!!

Waddaya think we've ∀ been been asking !!!

Jonny

Well, yes, pretty much. It's not that they necessarily like vandalism any more than we do, but it does justify a whole lot of nasty BS on their part. Primarily, it excuses the quantity-over-quality approach to both the pool of admins and the process behind banning.

If there were minimal vandalism, WP wouldn't need so many admins, so it could afford to apply higher standards for admission and then be able to police them more carefully. With fewer vandalism cases, there'd be less rush to indef block on sight and no excuse for CU witch hunts. There'd at least be the potential for conflict resolution to be taken seriously, objectively and apolitically.

As a parallel, consider how empty our prisons would be, and how unclogged our courts, if the pointless "war on drugs" ended with legalization and regulation. For that matter, our morgues would have fewer victims of turf wars, there'd be a reduction in the theft and prostitution that finance overpriced drugs and our cops wouldn't need to be bribed quite so much, so they'd be less corrupt. I say this as a distinct non-fan of drug use, but as a realist about the high price of enforcement and the risk of having justice compromised by dilution.

As a side note, keep in mind that many admins use a much broader definition of vandalism than normal people do. Sure, we all agree that replacing the text of Atheism with "God doesn't exist, so fucking get over it!" is vandalism (though not necessarily false), but some admins go substantially further. For example, when I reverted the deletion of cited information on Circumcision, it was called vandalism on the basis that I was unwittingly supporting an edit by a banned user.

Apparently, any edit by or in favor of a banned user is considered vandalism. The way I saw it, however, was that it didn't matter where the text came from, but whether I personally endorsed it on the basis of its content, particularly the citations it contained. Another source of fake vandalism claims is the idea that edits by supposed sock puppets are equivalent to vandalism, once again regardless of content. In fact, any persistent editing against a supposed consensus is also called vandalism by some. Essentially, vandalism comes down to whatever an admin says it is. Draw your own parallels to pornography, if you like.



Yes, people don't have to know that they follow a particular bias to follow it, much less know its name. They can arrive at a view independently, or be influenced anonymously, or simply be ignorant of the alternatives. Analyzing edits in terms of content bias is, by the way, much more honest and productive than trying to match text to banned editors based on style. Style doesn't much matter, and no doubt there are both irrelevant similarities and deceptive deviations that befuddle the results.

A great example is Proabivouac's recent conclusion that User:ThAtSo is my sock. There was never any CU support, just Pro's gut feeling that some similarities were significant (as well as his gut feeling that some major differences weren't). At best, his case was dubious, at worst, laughable. However, if you put aside this surface analysis and look at the content, it's obvious that there's no match because I've always been on record as being against Randism while ThAtSo is, in word and deed, an Objectivist.

I have to wonder how Pro would account for the fact that my views are so strongly opposed to those of ThAtSo. Do people normally create sock puppets who they violently disagree with? I suppose he'd invoke some ad hoc explanation based on Yes, people don't have to know that they follow a particular bias to follow it, much less know its name. They can arrive at a view independently, or be influenced anonymously, or simply be ignorant of the alternatives. Analyzing edits in terms of content bias is, by the way, much more honest and productive than trying to match text to banned editors based on style. Style doesn't much matter, and no doubt there are both irrelevant similarities and deceptive deviations that befuddle the results.

A great example is Proabivouac's recent conclusion that User:ThAtSo is my sock. There was never any CU support, just Pro's gut feeling that some similarities were significant (as well as his gut feeling that some major differences weren't). At best, his case was dubious, at worst, laughable. However, if you put aside this surface analysis and look at the content, it's obvious that there's no match because I've always been on record as being against Randism while ThAtSo is, in word and deed, an Objectivist.

I have to wonder how Pro would account for the fact that my views are so strongly opposed to those of ThAtSo. Do people normally create sock puppets who they violently disagree with? I suppose he'd invoke some ad hoc explanation based on paranaoia. After all, Pro also linked me with four or five other people, whose views on Objectivism were all over the board, which suggests he's claiming I'm fucking nuts. In response, I kindly suggest he's the one who's lost it, or never had it at all.



You're right that Randists typically know they're Randists, though they often prefer to use terminology that makes them seem more like independent thinkers, not cultists. Rather than admitting to being followers of Randism, they call themselves students of Objectivism. It's as funny as Trekkies who insist on being called Trekkers.

What complicates matters is that Objectivism used to be defined simply as whatever Rand said it was, but since she's been inconveniently dead for a while, the movement has schismed repeatedly over interpretations of her holy word. The major split is between Peikoff and Kelley, but there are many smaller ones as well. It's common for members of one Randist sect to insist that the others aren't "true Objectivists", which leads to lots of nasty little infighting. So, for example, the Objectivist, ThAtSo, was seen as an enemy by his fellow Objectivists on Team Rand because he was a Kelleyite, while they're Peikoffites. Insert your own parallels to various religious movements and outright cults.



Yes, simple poltics could easily account for Durova's behavior. This doesn't even have much to do with Randism, as such. Any ideology, even one that's not full of shit, is going to have nominal followers who interpret it to their own advantage. Of course, Randism makes this easier by calling selfishness a virtue.



On economic matters, such as taxation and federal aid, Republicans are very much in sync with Randist Libertarian apathy. The main difference comes on the social end, where Libertarianism wants to confine bigotry to the private sector while Republicanism sees it as a primary role of government. (Contrast this with those wacky liberals, such as myself, who think bigotry is bad in both cases. And note that I speak of liberals, not Democrats; who the fuck knows where the Democratic party really stands on such issues, given how far it's slid towards the right in its desperate bid to win back political power?)

So, getting back to Katrina, Bush's response can be accounted for by three things: incompetence among his corrupt appointees, Libertarian-style apathy about those in need and especially the poor, and good old-fashioned racism.



The compiler will enforce syntax, and QA can test for semantics to a large extent. What coding standards are about, however, are people, not machines. The goal is improved communication among programmers. To this end, they're a compromise by which members of a team agree to make their code mutually intelligible so that they can work together effectively. The ideal is that someone looking at the code won't be able to tell who wrote it because it will reflect the conventions of the group, not any personal idiosyncrasies. This is made particularly obvious when the system is exposed through an API, such as in an SDK. Once outsiders get to see the hodgepodge, shame becomes a strong motivator.

Randists, of course, value individualism above productivity (and principles above consequences, being deontologists). Unfortunately, these anarchistic tendencies tend to make their contributions counterproductive in a team programming environment. Oddly enough, their demand for personal expression uber alles conflicts with their call for objectivism and their denigration of whims, but I never said they made any sense.



It can be subtle, since Randist Libertarianism is insanely pro-capitalism, even more so than Republicanism. Republicans talk about a laissez-faire free market, but they usually have enough common sense to admit that a certain amount of regulation is needed, beyond simple fraud prevention. Libertarians claim the market will solve all things, so regulation is evil. This isn't so much false as irrelevant, as the market's solution may well conflict with the needs of society, both in timing, scope and collateral damage.



That's an interesting analysis. Stereotypically (and perhaps typically), Randism appeals most to the unformed and ignorant, to teens rebelling against the restrictions of Christianity and childhood. A Randist's first exposure to any sort of philosophy often comes from Rand's libertarian science fiction, which is sort of like learning Young Earth Creationist geology as your first exposure to science.

Much like someone raised fundamentalist Christian and utterly ignorant of all the world's religions, the new Randist tends to see the world purely in terms of whether Randism would approve. This leads to Randists being seen as fundamentalists, zealots and cultists. Of course, without the sort of insight that comes from understanding other, more rigorous, philosophical views, they're incapable of truly understanding their own avowed ideology, leaving them particularly vulnerable to self-deception due to wish fulfillment.



Hmm. Young, bright, quick to grab at one ideology, but just as quick to dump it so as to fit in with another group. This is a typical path for Randists. Lots of decent people go through a Randist phase, but most outgrow it and perhaps even benefit from it to some extent, depending on how far the come. It's only those with arrested development who end up as lifelong Randists.



From what I've seen, it often comes down to whether your role is financial/executive or creative/technical. For example, in Hollywood, the stereotypical actor is a liberal, while the stereotypical producer is a conservative.



I don't worry much about what people like Jimbo think of me, and I wouldn't suggest that anyone else worry, either. It's not as if his sort is likely to change when confronted with the facts.



If you even look at my edit comments, you'll see I often tried to take a lighter note on things from the very start, perhaps as an antidote to constant the hostility behind the inevitable confrontations. Near the end, I realized more and more just how ridiculous WP was, so I turned to humor more often. Of course, this pissed the cabals off even more, since these sort of people are particularly sensitive to well-placed ridicule. At risk of running afoul of Godwin's law, I'll mention that Hitler passed laws forbidding dogs and horses from being named after him.

Yes, SV was involved in my demise, but Jayjg moreso. Tony Sidaway played a major role by filling my log with completely bogus ban, but really, it wasn't one particularly nasty admin, but an ad hoc assembly of all the "important" people I'd pissed off. As you may have noticed, while I might have a sense of humor, I also have a tendency to speak with bluntness and sometimes vulgarity. This did not make friends among those admins whose incompetence I pointed out, though I certainly had my share of allies among the downtrodden. I was particularly amused by how ideologically incompatible these people were, making strange bedfollows. The only thing the lynch mob had in common was their hatred of me.

Perhaps because I saw my trial as a joke and gave up on it, they never got around to tracking me down IRL and trying to destroy me. I seem to remember some mention of anti-semitism on the Circumcision talk page, but it never rose to a high level. My participation ended with a whimper, not high drama.



What got me involved in editing Wikipedia was righteous indignation. It really bugs me when there's injustice, particularly deception and abuse of power, which is why I made a WP career out of confronting partisans (and, incidentally, making them really, really hate me). However, I do recognize that anger now is largely pointless, so I'm mostly not angry. Whatever anger remains does bleed through my descriptions of some of the less admirable people I've encountered on WP, and is part of my motivation for participating here.

What I'd like to imagine is that, somehow, all of our bitching and moaning might have some positive effect on Wikipedia. For example, Jimbo might cry and run away.

Anyhow, I've been wordy, so I'm going to stop now. Thanks for being patient enough to skim to the end. :-)

Al

Oh, does he? Well, hello, Jimbo. I'm sure this thread is either on his radar then or someone will bring it to his attention shortly.

Jimmy, did you notice the blog here with its analysis? Did you know that WR is a major search engine source for info on Wikipedia now? Goodness.

Sure would be a shame if information on the blog got forwarded to anyone in Wikia's Series A. Or already had.

I think that they are actually understaffed for admins, in general. From what I noted, it seems that the admins just focus on a few areas, or where there is some interesting drama, or where their buddies have called them.

Good God, they really damaged you. You are actually comparing real crime to Wikipedia vandalism. Snap out of it!

Well, that's nothing short of insane.

See what worries me is that you are trying to reason with insanity. Which is equally, if not more insane. Come back to the light...

Ok, now I am really worried about you. You are continuing to try to reason with crazy logic, about agreeing with banned editors being ejection-worthy. But more crucial, you took my comment about people's personal biases being translated into a political orientation, and moved it immediately into the word of edit bias. That troubles me.

See, what I find amusing is that Rand's own big break with one of her most important supporters and followers was based on finding out that he (her lover) was shagging another Randian. For that, she rejected all of his collaborative teachings. I have a hard time respecting that, even if I bought the philosophy, which I didn't anyways, but this makes it even less respectable. While it is true that Freud and Jung split much over a woman (Jung was sleeping with a patient which Freud disagreed with as being unethical) it was an ethical disagreement which forked Jung off into a different substantive direction. This wasn't at all the case with Rand. She couldn't see that his sleeping with another woman was the epitome of selfishness, and applaud him for it. She should have changed her own philosophy as a result of that experience, but instead, she just rejected his additions to the discipline. Kind of immature.

Oh I see what you were getting at. I thought that you were getting into IEC or ISO stuff.


Probably the strategy is "let me do what I want, and then you denigrate your whims to me, as the untermenschen".

Yes, this sounds about right. Any adoption of such extreme views is indicative of a lack of political education, or maturity, or consciousness in general. This isn't confined to libertarianism.

Sounds about right. Still, I know a few Dems and Pubs guilty of the same thing, i.e. mostly having no idea what they are supporting. What would make Randians stand out is the starkly unrealisitic nature of the ideals.

He was too old for that. But the girl straightened him out.


No arguments here.


This isn't at all true. Most Hollywood producers known for being liberal AND power-drunk AND crassly materialistic AND money-focused (these aren't mutually exclusive qualities). I get the idea you are stuck in the money-power-people are conservatives, and the artists, programmers, and creatives are liberals. Like the book "Rich Dad, Poor Dad". I happen to disagree with that concept. It is far too simplistic.


Hey, why change yourself when confronted with facts.... when you can change the facts (also known as lying). After all, if facts are defined by consensus, and Jimbo can veto consensus, doens't he define reality? And then he's not really lying! Hey!

Well, ridiculous people hate having their ridculousness ridiculed. That's a given.

My, it was nice of Hitler to forbid people to name dogs and horses "Mike Godwin". (oops) Just kidding, I know what you meant. Joking.

(Nostalgic) Nothing to bring people together like a good fight.

Well if you stop fighting, it takes all the fun out of kicking you.
Ok. I hope you can stop trying to make logic out of their banning you because you were like a person they banned, or punishing you for supporting a banned persons ideas, because to try to make sense out of that will wind you up in a straightjacket. You spent 2 or 3 paragraphs on that, and honestly, I think you need to just let it go as that they were assholes, and no reasonable. Finito. I don't even want to know, or need to know the details. It just sounds like complete crap. But the part about being attacked by circumcision "snippies" is just too hilarious for words.
It brings a mental picture of you being chased by Wikipedians with scissors, aiming for your privates.


Ha! That'll be the day. Jimbo will only be upset when someone he cares about confronts him, and that means one of his investors, or someone high up in government, etc.


My pleasure.

I doubt they would take it seriously. They would just call it a trolling.

Say, your picture gives me the creeps, infoboy. How about something less bothersome like this:

No, that's still not very comforting either. No Angela. How about making Jimbo smaller and surrounded by nice distracting red walls? Looking in his beady eyes everytime I see your avatar gives me the chills.

No, still too upsetting. What about this?

Ahhhhhhhhhh. Nice, blurry, distant. That's how I like him.

In-focus pictures of Jimbo give off the impression that he is going to bite the person he's looking at. He looks hungry in all of them. Scares me.

One of the standard claims of WP policy pages (and the admisn who pretend to enforce them) is that they ban for behavior, not ideology or the individual, and then only to deter that bad behavior.

That's the claim, yet punishment often includes being restricted from editing the topics that your ideology motivated you to edit in the first place. If you're permitted to edit them, you only get to do it under "revert parole", which effectively means that your changes to controversial articles will always be reverted by the owning cabal. There's also "attack parole" which amounts to sudden death the moment someone decides to pretend to offense at your words. In short, you can remain only if castrated and crippled. It's not about controlling your behavior, but about removing your ability to defend articles against partisans.

The motivation is further revealed by their other actions. If they were just punishing the behavior, there'd be no witch hunts to try to link new, non-disruptive users to banned ones with similar ideas or styles. In reality, the people who you pissed off in the first place patrol the articles you once edited and jump on every stupid newbie who makes the mistake of dong anything you might have. The ban is not on bad behavior, but on behavior that might be mistaken for yours.

If someone new reads a suggestion you made on the talk page and agrees, they're obviously a sock puppet and need to be indef banned, right? If they look through the history and sees some text you once wrote that's now missing and decides it belongs, shoot them now! The fact that it's personal is often revealed in snippy little comments intended to insult (hi, Nandesuka!).

Please, the hypocrisy of the WP admins is blatant and the policy is incoherent.

Al

Sure, because these people don't want to be admins in general, they just want the clout of adminship when it's time to back up their Team. If they couldn't do that anymore, they quit the sysop business and leave it for the less partisan, which would be a very good thing for Wikipedia. Better to have fewer admins who are at least somewhat reasonable (I mentioned EL_C recently as one apparent example) than pseudo-admins who are just partisans with badges.



I won't claim to be undamaged. Anyone on WR has to have a few screws loose just to be here. :-)

Having said that, i tend to try to understand issues by analogy with other issues that I already have some understanding of, so I use a lot of analogies. This is not, in and of itself, a sign of damage.



Thanks for the concern, but I'm basically ok. If I were trying to reason with insanity, I'd be doing it on WP, which would make me insane. Instead, I'm here making fun of the insanity, which is like shooting fish in a toilet.

Al

The strangest thing I found when I looked into ThAtSo's case is that, on his user page, he rather unnecessarily denies being Nathaniel Branden. It turns out that a Randist nut named Adam Reed actually accused him of this in all seriousness! Bizarre. Reed is a college professor and a fine case of arrested development, but it does look like he was bitten as a newbie and ran off. Poor ThAtSo had to deal with an endless barrage of absurd sock puppet accusations; no wonder he walked away in disgust, too.

Yes, the Kelleyites embraced the Brandens after Rand excommunicated them. It was a pretty ugly situation where nobody was innocent. Rand lusted after a man many years her younger who idolized her, then bullied both their spouses into allowing for kinky weekly sex. When his wandering penis found a much younger woman, she went batshit psycho on him. Branden, in turn, took advantage of the relationship while it lasted and helped fan the flames of cultism from the start, turning a novelist into the figurehead of a religious movement. It's stranger than fiction.



Right, this has nothing to do with following some procrustean process to get government contracts.



Yes, it usually boils down to a simple double standard: whatever I say is objective, but what you say is just a whim.



There's a false truism that claims anyone who doesn't become a liberal has no heart, but anyone who doesn't then become a libertarian has no brain. I think this is exactly wrong. Anyone who doesn't at least feel the appeal of Objectivism when growing up has no brain, but anyone who buys into the amorality of libertarianism and stays with it has no heart.



Agreed: unthinking, knee-jerk adherence to any ideology is suspect. How a person arrives at a view is as important as the view itself. A standard criticism of Rand is that, when she's coincidentally correct, she's inconsistent, and when she's consistent, she's incorrect. It's not enough to be right, you have to be justified.



That's been known to happen. :-)



I just said a minute ago that the de facto political religion of programming is libertarianism, which is a far cry from liberalism, so I'm not sure I'm saying precisely what you think I am. I'd also have to conclude that liberalism marred by power-drunk, money-focused materialism isn't really worthy of being called liberalism. The stereotype (with at least some truth to it) is the Manhattan liberal who cares about the poor, just so long as they stay out of his neighborhood.

What I was getting at is that Randism requires a deeply confused view of how work is done. In specific, Rand didn't understand teamwork, and filled her books with implausible lone geniuses, such as Hank Rearden who forges a new alloy out of sweat, blood and angular features. Part of what made this possible is that, as a writer, she worked alone and therefore didn't have her face shoved into the reality of the office.

What's important here is that Rand didn't want to recognize the cooperative nature of research, or acknowledge Hank's debt to liberally centuries of metallurgists. This is not coincidental. See, the usual argument for altruism is that all of us benefit from the inventions and sacrifices of those who came before us, so we are indebted to them.

It's not that we have to honor them endlessly or hold back progress, but rather than we should do for the future what the past did for us; work to build a better world for those who follow. This sort of altruism does not conflict with our enlightened self-interest, but Rand's version of self-interest was hardly enlightened. If anything, this grand vision of altruistic progress is antithical to the short-sighted selfishness of Randist individualism, so it must be undermined a all costs.

In addition, as part of her support for laissez faire capitalism, she has to put the investor above the worker, which naturally appeals to those whose roles in business are less hands-on. In short, the situation is a bit more complex than any short sentence can encompass.



This view of "conensus reality" as a malleable social artifact is, ironically, indicative of postmodernism, which is strongly incompatible with Objectivism (not to mention Objectivism or even common sense).



I'm still trying to figure out why Godwin is drinking Jimbo's Kool Aid. He ought to know better.



Yes, they can switch over to declaring victory and vandalizing pages with POV injections and general censorship. Later, they can link newbies to me as an excuse for indef bans without due process.



I can't argue with that. The basic logic is that I opposed their cabals so I had to go. Any additional "logic" is just pseudo-justification after the fact. No amount of analysis can make the latter seem sensible.



I get the impression they wanted to cut off more than just my foreskin, while they were down there.



I don't think complaining alone will do much, but every movement has to have some thinking behind it, and that's the role Wikipedia Review fulfills.

Al

The words "policy coherence" imply to me that most of what you said flew straight over the heads of 95% of Wikipedians. The other 5% knew exactly what you were talking about and didn't give a rat's butt, and wanted you dead.



Well, that was the stated objective of cabalship. You do the time, you get the clout. Vandal chasing was secondary, if that. Still is.

I disagree. This is a reality check, which is why it pisses them off so much. They want WR to be a neo-nazi hangout so badly that they come over here (see checkuser discussion) and make Nazi references to irrelevant topics (see Guy's comment: "Please don't compare Poetlister to Nazi Germany").

Well, if you use a gun, it could cause problem. Broken porcelein and such.

It might have been where I grew up and what I was attracted to, but I'd heard much more about Branden's stuff, most of which was psychology related stuff. To me, Rand was just required reading for English classes (never political science, for obvious reasons). Her writing never really attracted or satisfied me. It seemed too wooden. Probably Brandon felt the same.

On the contrary, IEC is all about product liability and electrical conformance, which is for selling stuff. And ISO is all about big companies (and small ones) getting a ISP 9000 QA stamp saying their processes are consistent. In reality it means they paid a consultant to come document everything they do, which means nothing. I could get an ISO 9000 certification if someone documented my daily morning routine (brush teeth, take shower) and annotated it with all kinds of declensions. Really useless stuff that ISO 9000, but consulting firms cleaned up in the mid 1990s, to early 2000s.

And WHO does that sound like? It is obvious why the theory attracted him.

That's so ignorant. Democrats are generally better educated about many things, but that greater store of information makes them more difficult to consolidate. (Im discounting the foolish emos who want to save the whales - or whatever - here, if you know what I mean, which make up a certain percentage of Democrats, but are generally ok). Republicans are more focused on Money and Power. That's really easy to consolidate. Being a liberal of a Dem doesn't mean you don't like money. That's the stereotype, with which I don't affiliate. Most university professors are dems, as are many of the hi-tech superstars. Because they look at the big picture.

Seeking financial security or success != power drunk.

Being concerned about the poor and being concerned about yourself and your tribe/family isn't at all mutually exclusive. In fact, to put others in front of yourself is not a good idea. You can only help others when you don't have worries. If you think that making yourself poor will give you a special relationship to the downtrodden will be of use, I've got news for you. They are usually even less nice than the rich. Financial success commands respect across the board.

I imagine that she equated teamwork with communism, and idealized that any group would would be by choice of the individual. She obviously didn't have to work in the private sector, because her ideals don't work there.

That pretty much sums Randism up in a nutshell for me.

Godwin is a media whore and Jimbo probably pays him well. Besides that Godwin's POV is government needs to keep its paws off internet freedom, and that makes him Jimbo's best friend. Jimbo knows that armageddon is coming, and he wants all the legal angels on his side, when it arrives.

Then how can you be angry at them? Your appeals were a social experiment, which proved they weren't capable. They are what they are.

Yes, I visualized a rather big pair of scissors, wielded frantically by Jayjg.

Why they care about other people's opinion of c-cision is beyond me. That's so private (literally) and really, who cares?

Yes, to a degree.

This has less to do with WP than the nature of power. When you have the power, you want to use it. This often involves changing the rules to allow you to do what you want. The problem is that, once you've done this, the rules can get in the way the next time you want to use your power.

That's why it's vital to make sure the rules are easily bypassed. A good way is to fill them with contradictions and put yourself in the position of interpreting which one applies in a given situation. This way, the real rule becomes "I do what I like". So, anytime the rules are complex and conflicting, it's a hint that they are a thin veil for raw power.



Yes, but it's not the stated objective of adminship, which leads to some inconsistencies. Frankly, the admins that most creep me out aren't the obvious partisans, like Jayjg, but the weirdly mechanical ones, like Centrx. They often do more harm than even the partisans because they blindly carry out some slice of policy without caring at all about the consequences. Centrx, for example, enforces bogus sock puppet convictions by reverting the accused's changes, even when all that does is introduce typos. He's not a human being!

If WP is going to succeed, it's going to need to make adminship less inviting to partisans. This will require separation of power, with a content dispute resolution mechanism that's independent of the admins who carry out the rulings. The same mechanism will serve as a place to appeal the actions of admins. In this way, becoming an admin will do little to aid the Cause, whatever wacky zealotry it happens to be. Essentially, by distinguishing between the judge and the police, we lower the potential for corrupt. Now all we need is the IAD...

After I left WP, I got email and Talk messages encouraging me to come back, but I refused to do so unless I was on ArbCom, since that's the level of power I'd need to protect myself against the various cabals I pissed off. That's a fine measure of how corrupt the system is.



The screw we have loose is that we apparently care enough about the rotting abortion that is Wikipedia is discuss it endlessly and consider how it can be improved. It's not that we're embittered nuts, but rather that we're the loyal opposition. We care more about Wikipedia than its corrupt admins do.



Yes, that's why it's pointless. Easier to just flush.

Al

Well, Wikipedia is going to have to fall apart and be rebuilt, sans Jimbo, with better safeguards. I think that everyone knows that, if they know anything about the place.

No, he fell for it in a big way. It really does appeal to teenagers because it feeds their newfound illusion of self-importance and esteem. (Brandon went on to write a lot about self-esteem as a psychiatrist, to the point of idiocy.) Rand portrays a world where men are men and women are spanked regularly (much like Brandon's sex life with her). It is a place where people are Heros!

I first encountered Objectivism in one of its rare mentions in an academic context. It was an outdated textbook that surveyed philosophy, and it gave Rand most of a page, which is generous. After pointing out the positives, the rest of the page casually tore it all to shreds. In short, Randism appealed to me for a few minutes, at best.


Either way, it's about dotting i's, not merely cooperating.


I can't deny that this sounds like Jimbo.


Yes, that's why I identified it as a false truism. Education without direct indoctrination leads towards liberalism. I'm not convinced that the Democratic party has much to do with liberalism anymore, but that's another issue.

There's nothing wrong with wanting personal financial success. The difference is that economic conservativism (which includes both Republicanism and Libertarianism) sees the economy as a zero-sum game, where your success must come at the cost of others, winners deserve to win and have earned the privileges of the victor, while losers deserve to lose and should be left to rot.

In contrast, liberals see it as a potentially positive-sum game, where your success is threatened when others are deprived of their opportunity to succeed, and it is to your benefit when everyone prospers. This isn't an endorsement of egalitarianism at all cost, but rather a recognition that societal disparities in wealth are destabilizing. As you said, it comes down to looking at the big picture.

As for consolidation, that's the problem. Liberals tend to fragment over various pet issues, some of them flakey. Conservatives ally over lowering taxes (for the rich, anyhow, since they all hope to be rich) and driving foreign policy along economic grounds (such as taking over the Iraqui oilfields using any excuse). This is likely one factor in the ongoing Republican dominance over American politics. Religion is another.


Agreed, but you're the one who brought up "power drunk".


Oh, I'm under no illusion that the poor are inherently good people. If anything, being on the losing end tends to remove the luxury of niceness and leave you damaged. To put it another way, victims are assholes.

The idea isn't to make the rich poor, but to get rid of poverty. This will likely make the super-rich a little less rich, but will generally increase the wealth of society. In fact, this is one of the most basic conclusions of game theory.


That's entirely correct, as is revealed in "Anthem".


Ah, looks like they bonded over their shared hatred of government.


In retrospect, that's what it amounts to. I'm not sure that it's personal anger at these typical goons, but rather my righteous indignation at the pointless unfairness of the system.


Because it's not private. If a freak like Jakew decides in adulthood to trim his wick, that's private and I'm totally apathetic. Let him cut off his entire penis for all I care. However, this bit of surgery is almost always performed on infants at the behest of their parents, and it's not easily reversible. It's also something that is not medically supported and whose motivations amount to religion or conformism. Originally, the motive was anti-sexual, as it was supposed to interfere with the evil of masturbation.

As such, it becomes a focal point for debate over the l imits to parental and religious rights. Anyone who suggests that we might want to allow males to decide for themselves when they're a bit older is taken as opposing the religious freedom of Jews, who say they have a sacred obligation to mutilate the penises of their baby boys. This gets Team Israel into a lather, so they sic the Snippies on the obvious anti-semite who dares question their (literally) God-given right to cut dicks. From my point of view, this is about society stepping in to defend children against their parents crazy beliefs. Religious indoctrination is itself a form of child abuse; religious surgery is even worse.


All societal problems go through stages.

1) Something sucks.
2) Someone pointss out that it sucks and suggests that it's bad.
3) People start to acknowledge the suckiness and want it fixed.
4) Someone explains the source of the suckiness and the alternative.
5) People work together to remove the suckiness.

The even-numbered steps are what provide the necessary intellectual underpinning. Right now, Wikipedia is entering stage 3, and we're pushing it towards stage 4, making stage 5 possible.

Al

In the real world, when a big business fails, it rarely just shuts its doors. Instead, it sells itself for pennies on the dollar to a hungry competitor. When Wikipedia fails, the database isn't going to go away. Anyone can legally host it, but what matters is who captures the imagination of the public and thereby gets more and better editors than the competition, along with the Google ranking that will keep it at the top. Without a firm organizational basis, any post-Jimbo wiki "encyclopedia" will at best fall into the same trap and at worst dissipate the volunteer workforce across nearly identical (and identically bad) competiting wikis.

Maybe what we should be doing here is discussing how we'd make a Wikipedia replacement work.

Al

First of all, no one is paying me to do that. I'd rather work on one of my projects for pay.

But most importantly, theorizing on something that might happen, in the future, and the problems that might come up, isn't a good use of time. My experience is that the best of plans isn't enough. And thats when you have serious investment involved.

I think that most of the inputs on here are pretty good. They could be put into a business plan if someone had a concrete idea of competing with Wikipedia. I wouldnt bother with it, personally.