It has been said that all cults rest on a "single mad belief", which must be accepted against reason, and from which all cult behavior follows, often by normal patterns of reasonable thought.

Whether this is true or not, I believe I'd identified a number of "mad beliefs" that the high mucky-mucks of Wikipedia live by. So, I'm making a list.

Anybody want to contribute? To be eligible, the idea must be one you'd get vigorous argument for denying, on any projectspace TALK page. And yet, which is obviously wrong-by-inspection for any half-way honest person, who has much experience on WP. Thus, it must be essentially a religious belief about the policies of Wikipedia, or the WMF, held on faith, by otherwise-intelligent people who have chosen to have a tremendous mental blindspot about something.

Here's my list start:

1) That you can write a standard length NPOV article without violating WP:NOR or WP:SYN.
2) That WP's policies were mainly constructed by its editors (the communiteh).
3) That all the statements in WP:NOT are actually true (WP is not a battleground, not an almanac, not a travelguide, etc. )
4) That IP-anon editors contribute in an important way to the writing and maintenance of en.wiki.


Next?

There's a rather vast literature on the functional meanings of otherwise difficult to rationalize religious doctrines and rites.

Jon

Just as there is on the functional meanings of social lies. And other social rituals which are not, by a strict application of the term, "religious." (Yes, I know it's hard to define). But that serve as some form of communication.

The problem with all this analysis is that it's like post-closing-of-bell "explanation" of why the stock market did what it did, that day. If these guys know so much, how come they didn't write it YESTERDAY? You can always explain the utility and "why" of something, after the fact.

And you can similarly post-hoc-ically wank and wank about the anthropological purpose/social function that killing your neighbors and shrinking their heads as trophies serves, for your headhunting community. But you know what? How about we try something different anyway?

You'll have to yank yer butt of the Wiki-Pew for that.

Jon

That "knowledge" (as in "the sum of all human...") can be agglomerated, so that 10 smart people are equal to 100 morons, or infinite monkeys.

Hey, I just go to participate in the community service. I don't actually believe in the sermons.

Just stay out of the army surplice — or the grunts will think yer a chaplain.

Jon

Heh heh heh.......

And speaking as someone who's seen a lot of anime in the last few years.....Saint Seiya sucks.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
One should always assume good faith.

I would say that it is not so much the "single mad belief" but the ability to believe, to be manipulated, or to be willing and able to manipulate others into believing ... the single mad belief. The latter being the defining factor that separates actual cultist from adherents.

I think it was Gurdieff who instituted this most directly by asking of his adherents to do some dishonest, shameful or nasty to someone close to them as a "test". If they "passed" the test (that is discarded their moral compass), they were eligible as guru material. In essence, the hypothesis is that somewhere between most to every guru works on the same system.

As an aside, how many folk made it to junior guru 'admin' status by being nice, having specialist knowledge, being a good editor etc and how many made it by exercising their idiocy/prejudice/maliciousness or through hurting others? (Honest question).

The "single mad belief" might be "that we are all doing this in order to 'free' all the world's knowledge" ... without sitting down first and defining what "knowledge" actually is.

What about the "single mad method" by which the "single mad belief" is propagated?

There is no cabal.

Nope, just a bunch of raving flakes, pretending to write an "encyclopedia".

Hey, gang.



1) That "good faith" exists in any environment where "no personal attacks" is a tool used to remove troublemakers. I think I listed it once:

Elara's Law: The first person who brings up WP:AGF in an argument is usually the one who is failing to assume good faith.


2) The very concept of NPOV. It's a pile of pretentious bullshit some Randian asshat ejaculated over the page to convince people Wikipedia was not just partisan screed...but it makes no sense. Some of the most POV issues have been the subject of raging controversy for fucking centuries, and you're going to tell me a collection of teenagers, bored academics, bitter middle aged housewives, and power-tripping lunatics are going to find a perfect solution to find middle ground?

Yeah, but how do you really feel about it?

Jon