Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: ¤ Jewels Of Denial ¤
> Wikimedia Discussion > General Discussion
Jonny Cache
One of the phenomena that I am noticing more and more of late — in espaces across the web that go far beyond Wikipedia and Citizendium — is one that my old psych textbooks described a bit like this.

When people try to deny some aspect of their individual personalities or their general human nature, the effort to do so does not obliterate the motive force that it targets but only drives it beneath their critical awareness, and hence beyond their conscious control, where it festers and grows and becomes far more powerful than it ever could have become if it were kept in the light of effability.

Sound like anybody we know?

Memory can be a Trickster at times, but I think that Jung borrowed a term of art from Greek drama to descibe this dynamics, calling it enantiodromia, literally "running backwards", and I remember that I used to enjoy the pun of calling it enantiodrama. Freud described something akin to it under the headings of fixation, repetition compulsion, and the return of the repressed. Other traditions have had their own names for it, of course, but none quite so catchy as these.

At any rate, using this concept of denial, increase, and return helps us to understand why movements like Wikipedia and Citizendium have so quickly — and with such a venegeance, you might say — turned into the very opposites of what they so clamorously pretend to be, and in almost every dimension of their initial intents and purposes.

Jonny cool.gif
LamontStormstar
Do you have a better idea than NPOV?
thekohser
QUOTE(LamontStormstar @ Fri 31st August 2007, 4:13pm) *

Do you have a better idea than NPOV?

I do. Multiple Point of View. That is, leave room for the pro and con, the laudatory and the critical. Present all views with accurate citations of published (on paper) sources, and let the reader decide. If articles get too big, break them off into sub-articles.

I believe this was the original concept of NPOV, but it fell victim in short time to the Wikipedia Inversion of Knowledge Identification, Actions of Supreme Sycophants Editing Swiftly (WIKI ASSES).

wink.gif

Greg
guy
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 31st August 2007, 10:19pm) *

Multiple Point of View. That is, leave room for the pro and con, the laudatory and the critical.

Sounds suspiciously like Wikinfo.
blissyu2
According to Larry Sanger, his original concept of Neutral Point of View (NPOV) was that experts would contribute ideas, and it would be moderated by a neutral uninvolved party, to incorporate both sides (or all sides) of the argument in a factual way. But the problem is that Wikipedia didn't listen to his ideas properly, they often couldn't find experts, and they decided to have a bunch of articles that were written by people who weren't experts anyway, and experts were banned. This apparently wasn't what Larry Sanger wanted. Nor did Sanger want for there to be, on occasions, one expert writing, but pushing the entire article to his point of view.

Of course, what Sanger failed to note while he was coming up with the rules, is that whenever you make any kind of rule, its human nature to try to work out ways around that rule. Which is what people did. So if anything its Sanger's fault for not allowing for it properly.

Or perhaps its Jimbo's fault for not really thinking the Wikipedia idea through. Or perhaps its Ben Kovitz's fault for thinking up a radical change to Nupedia then having nothing to do with implementing it.
LamontStormstar
QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Fri 31st August 2007, 4:08pm) *

According to Larry Sanger, his original concept of Neutral Point of View (NPOV) was that experts would contribute ideas, and it would be moderated by a neutral uninvolved party, to incorporate both sides (or all sides) of the argument in a factual way. But the problem is that Wikipedia didn't listen to his ideas properly, they often couldn't find experts, and they decided to have a bunch of articles that were written by people who weren't experts anyway, and experts were banned. This apparently wasn't what Larry Sanger wanted. Nor did Sanger want for there to be, on occasions, one expert writing, but pushing the entire article to his point of view.


How's NPOV on Citizendium doing?
Jonny Cache
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 31st August 2007, 5:19pm) *

QUOTE(LamontStormstar @ Fri 31st August 2007, 4:13pm) *

Do you have a better idea than NPOV?


I do. Multiple Point of View. That is, leave room for the pro and con, the laudatory and the critical. Present all views with accurate citations of published (on paper) sources, and let the reader decide. If articles get too big, break them off into sub-articles.

I believe this was the original concept of NPOV, but it fell victim in short time to the Wikipedia Inversion of Knowledge Identification, Actions of Supreme Sycophants Editing Swiftly (WIKI ASSES).

wink.gif

Greg


QUOTE

Acronymphomanics Anonanonanonymous
Meets @ The WikiPedia Review
Wednesday Mornings, 3 AM



Jonny cool.gif
Robster
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Fri 31st August 2007, 10:58pm) *

QUOTE

Acronymphomanics Anonanonanonymous
Meets @ The WikiPedia Review
Wednesday Mornings, 3 AM




What time zone is that, please? I need to calibrate my watch. smile.gif
Jonny Cache
QUOTE(Robster @ Fri 31st August 2007, 11:55pm) *

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Fri 31st August 2007, 10:58pm) *

QUOTE

Acronymphomanics Anonanonanonymous
Meets @ The WikiPedia Review
Wednesday Mornings, 3 AM



What time zone is that, please? I need to calibrate my watch. smile.gif


QUOTE

That would be 03:00 MIJAFHAFLODST

Morning Is Just A Few Hours Away First Light Of Dawn Savings Time


Put that in yer Gargoyle and smoke it !!!

Jonny cool.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.