I'd mentioned in some thread (damned if I can find it now) that I was thinking of banging this out, so here it is:

[[WP:WINNER]]

Just an essay on there. Thoughts?

good

added to wikiversity ethics topic here

sharing this: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/

There is a fundamental philosophical problem with this. It assumes that a dispute over content is a matter of ego and not truth. It is relativist in the extreme.

If I insist that Glasgow is in Scotland and not France, it is not a matter of pride or ego but of veracity. Sure, I need to be civil and state my arguments when someone insists that Glasgow is actually a European microstate founded in 1935, but in the end, I AM right and they ARE wrong.

Consensus is fine, where consensus is a means of reaching truth. I get 7 sane editors to agree with locating Glasgow on the river Clyde, then consensus has worked. But, if the !vote reaches some absurd conclusion, that does not mean that Glasgow moves to the Thames, and I am an egotist who wants to win a game when I insist otherwise and will not yield to the will of the subjective throng.

Jimbo once said "There are people who have good sense. There are idiots. A consensus of idiots does not override good sense. Wikipedia is not a democracy". On the other hand, since everyone thinks they have good sense, then who are the idiots? Unfortunately, consensus does and must overrule what the minority believes is good sense ...... even if that has the Clyde running through the Urals. All I am left with then is my ego, telling me that I am right anyway.

Yes, but that is like saying AGF is fundamentally wrong with the same logic. Wikipedians are supposed to be nice to each other, and tolerant, understanding that they may not understand the issues that another person is presenting. That is not to say that Wikipedians are supposed to be saps that are taken for a ride by those who seek to manipulate Wikipedia for their own inscrutable purposes.

The problem with people whose egos require them to win will have convenient justifications why their ego-battling isn't that, but is instead perfectly justified defense of The Truth, or something similar. Wikipedia is overrun with ideologues relentlessly pushing their variant of the truth. Sadly, few of them are so nakedly obvious as the "Glasgow-on-Thames" people Doc talks about.

Please — for the sake of your own mental health and that of your hapless readers — cease this brainless brand of wikispeak that abuses the good name of Consensus to mean the collective FX of 5 or 6 witless sockpuppets who show up in a random week to enforce their Idiotic Preferences on a text in progress.

No good can come of it … and a lot of no good already has …

Jon

My mental health?

"Nothing defines the quality of life in a community more clearly than people who regard themselves, or whom the CONSENSUS chooses to regard, as mentally unwell."

---Renata Adler

NP:CONSENSUS† is a perfectly sensuble word.

WP:CONSENSUS is a perfectly senseless word.

And ne'er the twain do meet.

Try not to confound the twain, Huck.

Jon

† NP = Normal People

Jon, please consider this your only warning. These types of attacks will not be tolerated. See WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I'm trying to help you here, Jon, so don't push it or you'll be given a short 'cool down' block ... Oh damn, wrong website. Nevermind.

We need this as a posting icon or a smiley.

My bad. I thought this thread was about [[WP:WHINER]]

I personally think that this essay is extremely important.

It's what the Arbcom should be saying in the Mother of all Arbcom cases right now. It's what should be repeated on nearly every ANI page and on talkpages of the usual suspects.

It's just an encyclopedia, people. It won't make you rich and it won't make you famous. It won't fix your personal or professional problems.

And the secret is....there are no winnners. That's the whole point.

I think you need to expand on this. This is really an essay whose time has come:

Are you listening, Arbcom members?

BTDT — All us Old Geezers (OG's) have been down this road before. Even if this E-say does E-ventually get E-masticated and E-viscerated E-nuff to become acceptable to Yer Trew Blew Wikipediot, the most it will ever amount to is yet another Wiki-Piece of Wiki-Pious Wiki-Preaching that All Good Wikipediots will Wiki-Point to with Wiki-Pretentious Wiki-Pomp — then turn right around and violate it at every turn.

Frayed this thread is just Not Ready 4 Meta-Time — will stuff it in the Article Forum if nobody can work up the level of Abstract Critical Thought that it takes to pull their heads out of Wikipedia's Wiki-Posteriori.

Jon

Jon, are you the one that added the thread subtitle about Norbert? I am thinking of nominating it for today's Featured Thread Subtitle.

Regarding [[WP:WINNER]], I sort of prefer the linked essay, WIkipedia is a MMORPG, in which the funniest part is the disclaimer at the top which reads This page contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous. It is not intended, nor should it be used, for any remotely serious purpose.

I see someone put a link to meatbeat when they could have used this link from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_...ed_contributors

Yes, I was just about to do a take on The Whiner Circle, but GPS beat me to the first turn o' φrase by a nose, so I was φarced to open it up φurlonger than my wont in the home-stretch to the pun-line.

Jon

I they would just put that disclaymore on every page of Wikipedia, we could all close up shop here and get back to our real lives.

Jon

The MMORPG is still one of the funniest essays on there.

Indeed; I especially loved the Whack-a-Mole comparison, as it's so true.

Yet Another Chat Thread (YACT) — Goodbye

Jon

Bye!