I have now started serious work on the book. Interviewing Richard Stallman early next month, already had contributions from people who know Jimbo well. Not forgetting Larry, of course, who has been really helpful.

I thought I would pop in to foundation-l to see if anyone interested in talking to me. I used the email 'Peter Damian' so it would be clear exactly who I was (I have a few others that would not have connected me with the infamous Damian troll).

Result, once they figure out who it is, all sorts of accusations of bad faith.

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...ber/069935.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...ber/069981.html

And when I sent a polite reply, I get an automated reply saying I am now 'on moderation'.

What is it with Wikipedians?

(a) Can't they see that anyone writing a book is likely to mention the fact they were banned from a mailing list simply because they might be writing a 'critical' appraisal of Wikipedia

(b) Don't they want their side of the story?

© Isn't their ideology something to do with making everything public, as far as possible?

It defies belief.

Note that Phil Nash, aka Rodhullandemu, is also a banned user.

"Not of the body!"

"Not of the body!"

"Not of the body!"

They've long past reached the point where they see any criticism that's not initiated internally as an attack on their sacred beliefs.

...and apparently you have committed a major bureaucratic faux-pas by posting to the wrong list, it seems.

I suppose they figure a Kitty Kelley-style hatchet job is forthcoming and the foundation doesn't want to play. That's probably a rational strategy, from their point of view -- making clear the author also makes clear the thesis in this case.

In your place, Peter (or is it Edward?), I would have been more forthcoming, saying that you are a long-time critic, active on WR, and that your book is apt to be critical of WP (though not merely critical, I'm sure). Then I would have asked if anyone is interested in articulating a (supposed) Wikipedian ideology, because you want to make sure that you had got such an ideology (or ideologies--surely there are several) correctly stated. This would have disarmed the sillier attacks.

This is, after all an attack on their sacred beliefs, is it not? If they were truly an open, tolerant lot, which of course they aren't but which they fancy themselves being, then simply coming out and saying that you're mounting a serious ("intellectual") critical attack should not faze them.

That would also be more fun. Just to watch 'em squirm.

Actually I said as much on the follow-up emails. However, it is these emails which they have embargoed.

I had assumed that, since I deliberately used the Peter Damian email address, which is clearly visilbe on the header, than one with my actual name on (which you have seen, Larry), and since I have posted before under that identity, that they would have not taken objection.

Larry, I am reading Andrew Lih's book right now. In my view he gives reasonable credit to you for the Wiki innovation. His book is coherently and engagingly written, well mostly.

I would like to check on what he says about the influence of Objectivism however - that part of the book is verging on incoherent.

Note, I haven't read any further than early 2001. I am looking forward to the bits with the Cunctator.

Yes, it's Edward.

Oh well.....this is why I haven't said anything on their precious "mailing list". Because any reaction therein will be hostile, stupid, shallow, and pointless. They are utterly dishonest people, and have nothing but ad-hominem attacks and childish abuse.

(And yes, this response should be well-noted in the book.)

Plus: you forgot to mention the two other authors involved.....now the assholes see it as a one-man
hit piece that is easy to dismiss.

All the more reason to continue with the original plan. They will get a big nasty surprise.

(I've gotten some absolutely incoherent angry rants back after asking a few WP nerds to let me interview them. Not sure they even knew who I am, though I always made it clear. This project will have to proceed with NO support or commentary from the WMF or their resident trolls. We've been giving them lots of opportunities to present their side of the story, and instead all you get is David Gerard and Geni spluttering.)

I have captured that Foundation-l thread and saved it as an ODF file.
Ready for use.

Now we can just point to "page xxx" if anyone asks why the Wikimedia Foundation wasn't "allowed"
to comment before publication. Because they were....and chose to respond with smug personal attacks.

(Oh, just a personal note. I've talked in the past month to a few people in the education field, including a couple of local schoolteachers, the chief librarian of my county library, and an instructor at CSU Chico. When I remarked that I was preparing to help with a book about Wikipedia, every one of them said the same thing: they are asked routinely by students if Wikipedia can be used as a source, and they all responded by warning the students that Wikipedia is utterly untrustworthy. The teachers all bluntly said that any student who turned in a paper that referenced or cribbed from a Wikipedia article would get a failing grade. That's the ticket: instead of interviewing Wikipedia nerds, interview actual educators. Apparently this attitude is widespread. Heh.)

Meanwhile, the two posts remain on moderation. The terribly subsversive post below is one of them. (The other was simply a reply to McBride about the licensing issue).

Slashdot interview with Jimmy Wales, July 28, 2004. See the last sentence in his reply to question 7.

Who needs a book in order to appreciate the glaring contradiction that is at the heart of WP "ideology"? Specifically: every collaborative project inevitably requires a leadership hierarchy — even a project like WP that claims (in Jimbo's wellknown statement of "principles") it has no hierarchy yet whose goal simultaneously is to reinforce the very concept of hierarchy itself. The contradiction drives a wedge between the leadership and many of the project's most astute collaborators, and the "community" falls apart. There you are: no book necessary; all sewn up in just two sentences.

Communicat: a book is very necessary. What you say above may be obvious to you and to me and many of the regulars here. It is not obvious to the general public, nor to the authors of many nauseous and fawning books about Wikipedia, some of which I have unfortunately had to read in order to pursue this project.

Why have so many books been written about the French Revolution, then?

Kohs, your comment is unintelligible. Go troll somewhere else; or maybe go write a book about Raisin Bran; or better still, go back to Examiner and earn further well-deserved ridicule from your readers.

I'm sure you mean the Reign of Terror, as that would be more apt when describing the Wiki.

Well look who's talking.

I'm glad you got it, Ottava. Others here are too dim. I do like some good raisin bran, though, admittedly. (It's a pretty big market, too -- more money is spent on raisin bran in a year than the Wikimedia Foundation has cumulatively raised since 2003.)

This thread, in one image - no books needed.

Impressive. Is that just in the United States, or the worldwide total? And are raisin brand sales rising as fast as WMF donations?

That's just Kellogg's (global figure). Have you forgotten already?

Is this a comparison of both object's ability to affect a consumer's ability/need to take a crap, by chance? Or is it more of a comment that both are effective at churning out crap? Either way, I am certain that both affect bowel movements.

By the way, I think Sunny from Kellog's Raisin Bran would be a more effective fund raising mascot than any of the editors used. And I wouldn't be surprised if someone from Commons argued that since the "sun" is a simple object then the logo cannot be copyrighted in order to justify its use.

Okay, so you want to talk about reigns of terror: Many books have also been written about El Salvador, Guatamala, Nicaragua, Agent Orange etc, and also books about the only government ever to be found guilty state-sponsored terrorism, in the International Court of Justice. It seems fitting that the self-styled "policeman of the world" should also play host to the thought police of world knowledge -- (you know who).

BTW, Peter/Edward, don't let Raisin Brain throw you off topic. Suggestion: interview DARPA about it's thoughts on WP. See https://www.rt.com/usa/news/darpa-fast-pent...-narrative-151/

Just how does one interview a government agency? And I think it's questionable to assert that government agencies, even those as well-regarded as DARPA, actually have thoughts.

On that note, DARPA is probably far less likely to have standard company lines or talking points than many other agencies.

It's not the job of government agencies to have thoughts. They have to do what the politicians tell them, neither less nor more. Politicians are elected (and paid) to do the thinking.

Peter, I know why they did not like your inquiry. As one wikipidiot put it "we're building an encyclopedia here, we're not rats in a cage for researchers to study."