Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales on Ayn Rand, art, and making money

[Gildyshowss]

NONPROFIT MY ASS JEWBO WALES GET ALL DA DOUGH!SAD BUT TRUE!Jimmy wales king pedo n his pervs aka slaves!Only censorship IS ON WIKIPEDIA AKA WIKIPEDOIA!WiKIPEDIA aka WIKIPEDOIA IS4WIKIPEDOS BOOKMARK WIKI-watch com WHAT DAMN HYPOCRITE JUST LIKE HIS MOLESTERCHILDSLAVES WIKIPEDOS WIKIDIOTS LOL!

[Gildyshowss]

NONPROFIT MY ASS JEWBO WALES GET ALL DA DOUGH!SAD BUT TRUE!Jimmy wales king pedo n his pervs aka slaves!Only censorship IS ON WIKIPEDIA AKA WIKIPEDOIA!WiKIPEDIA aka WIKIPEDOIA IS4WIKIPEDOS BOOKMARK WIKI-watch.de

[jaketothemax1000]

Finally someone who actually understands objectivism.

[wikipedosuk]

Fuk THIS FOO N HIS WIKIPEDO ADMINISTRATORS WIKIDIOTS SLAVES!YO CHECK TRUTH ON WIKIPEDOIA BOOKMARK WIKIPEDIA-WATCH ORG CHEK ALL LINX!

[niradg]

And this fool expects people to give money to Wikipedia out of the goodness of their heart. What a hypocritical, moronic, asshole.

[CuddlyBadger]

Wouldn't something like Wikipedia be incarnated with volunteerism even if it were for-profit? Wikipedia just wouldn't be Wikipedia if it were a subscription-based. Kinda makes me wish there WAS a profit-based entity, and that high-ranking intellectuals, experts and knowledgeable common folk were gainfully employed to oversee the undertaking. It would be cool to see what was accomplished then.

[ngaclips]

@CuddlyBadger

There was.....it was called Microsoft Encarta! Havent heard of it you ask?? Well then there is your answer!! It is no match!! lol

[lnqusitor]

Most everyone is missing the the key points and that is that "Mind" and "Free will" do not exist. They are metaphors to explain behavior when the cause is unknown. Rand bases her whole philosophy on things that do not exist which means it cannot work.

[MartenThuren]

@lnqusitor On the other hand, the mind-body dualism problem is not exactly solved. We certainly understand how the brain works and it seems deterministic, but we have no idea how it is related to consciousness. So I think it's too early to say there is no free will.

[lnqusitor]

@MartenThuren Yes it is solved because there was never a problem. Consciousnesses is is a product of biology. Now if you can show someone is conscience without a brain then there is a dualism problem. Until then there is no question.

[fab006]

@lnqusitor And there you go. Man has no mind because he has an organ to think with, paraphrasing that great Rand phrase about the lunacy of your position. Yes, consciousness is a product of life, of biology. Now where's the problem? There is no dichotomy between the mind and the body, but you are asking for one as a proof of Objectivism. Well, you've got that backward.

[eggory]

@lnqusitor Free will mostly serves philosophically as a premise for responsibility, but responsibility exists without a need for free will. Even if you are not the first cause of a particular chain of events it may still be that you played a critical role in their progression. Your character may be judged according to the way you are influenced by those events preceding you, instead of by your actions in complete independence from prior events. The "mind" simply the working of your brain exists.

[fab006]

@lnqusitor Interesting. How did you get to that conclusion, given that you have neither the capacity to chose one alternative over the other (free will), nor even any faculty whatsoever to deal with ideas in the first place (mind)?

[Konform2zoidberg]

"it's not really about making the most money" ? Rand was a militant capitalist. She held self-interest, and thus profit, as inherently moral. I think Wales completely misses the point of the works of Rand. She would have disapproved of Wikipedia, not because it was non-profit, but because it is for the most part altruistic.

I'm not kidding, she literally held altruism to be inherently immoral. She wrote essays and speeches to that effect

Bioshock forever!!!

[SpellboundSolution]

@Konform2zoidberg Go back to playing video games.

[yamahaU3]

@Konform2zoidberg Wrong, capiltalism is not about making money, if money did not exist, and people simply barter, capitalism would still exist. It's about pursuing the things you want from voluntary interactions between people, rather than forcing people to do things. If the thing Jimmy wants is not money but wikipedia, then fine. It's just that money turns out to be something most people want, but money is not the ultimate objective here, pursuing once own interest is.

[Grazpop]

@Konform2zoidberg Rand was extremely clear in her views of charity, and they were not at all negative. You should have a look at them: aynrandlexicon . com/lexicon/charity.html. You really do miss the point of her critique. She said charity is not a MORAL IMPERATIVE. That is radically different from its being immoral.

[hippotoast]

@Konform2zoidberg Why give a fuck about Ayn Rand and her half baked desperate philosophy? She was bat shit crazy and so are you if you give any credence to her crackpot teachings.

[RnBramwell]

@Konform2zoidberg Your statement, "She held self-interest, and thus profit, as inherently moral.", is presented in the context of making *money*. It implies the first cannot occur without the second, which is a misunderstanding of her case. Ayn Rand had no issue with charity where the donor was able to see a value achieved via the recipient. Seeing that value may be a non-monetary profit, of which she would approve. Her rule was that charity must not be self-sacrificial. Wales is fine!

[SculptedThoughts]

Justice in moderation is not a virtue. Fear of extremes is naked cowardice.

[wikiporno]

No. I'm saying that the reason democracy is fgreat is because it keeps radicals from taking control. Say the Objectist party is elected into office. If their reforms are disliked by the majority, then out with them in four years. That's why I think objectivism won't work, because if your party votes to get rid of welfare, they can say goodbye to all the votes from people who need it, and thus a less extreme and more rational group can take control.

[fab006]

@wikiporno Which is why Objectivists know that you can't begin with politics. You have to begin with changing the culture, then move on to politics once people hold the right ideas.

[lnqusitor]

@fab006 You want an answer? Here you go read About Behaviorism by B.F. Skinner.

[fab006]

@lnqusitor I might do that some day. Meanwhile, why don't you go read "The Stimulus and the Response" by Ayn Rand (to be found in "Philosophy: Who Needs It").

[lnqusitor]

@fab006 The difference between you and me is I HAVE read that. It is written by someone who has someone who has a very loose grasp of behaviorism. Don't believe me? Then read About Behaviorism and then go back and read the book you suggested. Be we both know you won't do that. IT is so much easier to just disagree and walk away then take the time t learn.

[fab006]

@lnqusitor Well, you are probably right. The thing is that if I already know the truth and have already validated it by introspection and observation, I don't need to read and answer every piece of fiction that is offered as a counter-argument.

[lnqusitor]

@fab006 Behaviorism is not a "counter-argument" it is a clinical science used by doctors with 70+ years of empirical evidence and you believe it is wrong and some extreme relatively obscure philosophy correct instead and you think you are the educated one for this.

[fab006]

@lnqusitor Well, I am as educated as I need to be - I don't read to be "educated", I read to improve my life. I don't feel any need at this time to read something that tells me I'm inable to judge it right or wrong (that is, to choose whether to believe it or not), and either way the faculty I use to understand what is written (and that was presumably used to come up with it in the first place - the mind) doesn't exist anyway.

[lnqusitor]

@fab006 l agree, you are as educated as you need to be.

[NotThat3]

My appreciation for Jimmy Wales just went up ten-fold.

[thegillotine09]

Wow this guy's great.

[arnomelez]

Jimmy why don't you go to your Armenian masters to beg money for. They can help you.Fortunately they found a dog like you to bark whenever they want for their filthy propoganda. They are very lucky.

[wikiporno]

Andrew Ryan would have him put to death as an altruist and parasite.

[NotThat3]

@wikiporno You do realize BioShock's Rapture is not an accurate representation of what an Objectivist society would look like?

[wikiporno]

@NotThat3 No. Just an objectivist soceity run by a hardcore objectivist. Same as how Mao and Stalin are examples of what happens when you have a communist soceity run by hardcore communists.

[NotThat3]

@wikiporno Andrew Ryan thought he can control the lives of Rapture's citizens. He was no Objectivist.

The comparison between Objectivism to Communism is absurd.

[wikiporno]

@NotThat3 So you're saying an Objectivist Police state is an Oxymoron? Fair enough. Tell me, If Communism is baised around the idea of everyone being equal then isn't a Communist police state also an Oxymoron? After all if everyone's equal, then how could there be a Dictator? My point is there could never be a communist society, or an objectivist society without putting hardcore communists, or hardcore objectivsts in charge.

[NotThat3]

@wikiporno In a Communist society, once you've produced something, me and my friends being the people, come and take it away from you claiming it belongs to us.

In an Objectivist society, once you've produced something it is yours, with the entire force of the government there to protect you from someone stealing it away from you.

It seems obvious to me that the first can only lead to dictatorship, while the second leads to prosperity and progress.

[NotThat3]

@NotThat3 The Communists can yell 'but we didn't mean to have a dictatorship, we wanted to create brotherly heaven on earth' all they like. The only thing that matters is the result, not the idealist intentions. There's a good article I recommend on this subject here:

newclarion . com /2011/01/the-road-to-hell/

[wikiporno]

@NotThat3 Look, I don't care. The point is there will allways be someone who doesn't want to vote for objectivist philosophies, so for the objectivists to acomplish all their goals they'd have to form a dictatorship and get rid of everyone who doesn't agree with them and who wants a minimum wage for example, or child labor laws, or whatever.

[NotThat3]

@wikiporno That's a strange way of looking at things. Do you still hold the same view even if an Objectivist society is based on justice? According to what you're saying, if I want a dictatorship, and everyone around me want a Democracy instead, then everyone is acting 'dictatorship-like' by forcing me to accept their Democracy instead of what I want?

[wikiporno]

@NotThat3 All I'm saying is the only way Objectivism, or any other kind of extermist political system would ever work is if EVERYONE was an Objectivist or whatever. Since that would never happen, either the objectivists would be voted out of office, or they'd form a dictatorship. The very fact that Objectivism is only followed by a radical fringe is all the proof you need to know that it would never work the way Rand said it would, just like communism would never work the way Marx said.

[NotThat3]

@wikiporno You bring two arguments here. First that in order for a government system to work, everyone must agree to it. But in Democratic systems you can find Anarchists and Communists and those who wish the see the system sway more in their direction. Yet the Democracy functions. How? Because all those individuals I mentioned understand that if they ignore the system in place, and break the laws at their whims, society would punish them and throw them in jail.Do you consider this dictatorship?

[NotThat3]

@NotThat3 Second, that because Objectivism is supported by a small minority fringe group, therefore it will never work. I am not sure whether you mean by this simply that people will never accept it, or that Objectivism is inherently flawed. If it's the first, then that is why the Ayn Rand Institute and many Objectivists are working to make a cultural change. If the second, then reailty isn't decided by head count. There are plenty of examples in history of a small minority being right.

[16neelloc]

Ban Wikipedia

thepetitionsitedotcom/1/ban-wi­kipedia/

[ronrutherford]

@16neelloc ....

[sdry]

On longer version of this interview he reveals he's a socialist

[JohnColt]

This is excellent.

[hyperseauton]

I am quite amazed Wales calls himself an objectivist. I can understand libertarianism, but objectivism?

Given his vision, I would then say 95% of people calling themselves objectivists are not true objectivists, as given by the example.

[NotRadicalLogical]

What do you define as a true objectivist? He came to the path he chose for himself and does not force anyone to follow his lead. How is he not living for himself rationally? I'm not clear on what you define as a "true objectivist".

[hyperseauton]

gee, Christmas Eve: I got trice more youtube replies in the same period as usual.

I guess objectivists are just a lonely bunch, never finding their idealist true Roark love and thus staying alone forever.

[nagee76]

Jimmy Wales hits the nail on its head - do things not because you are forced/mandated to do it or because it makes you look good in the eyes of people, judging you -but because you want to and you have a purpose to do so.

I am thrilled that an Objectivist is behind Wikipedia - hats off Jimmy Wales.

[vthyaga]

Agree word for word. Exactly. I'm thrilled that an Objectivist is behind Wikipedia too!

[carveawoodeneye]

@nagee76 yes !!

[yikeswood]

corection it is transova

[DonVoghano]

Objectivism is the name that Ayn Rand chose. That by no means implies that it is actually objective. In fact historically the more strongly a thinker asserted his objectivity, the further from it he actually ended up. Rand is way off with stuff like rational egoism or her quasi-naive realism which stress a twisted 17th century idea of rationality and underplays and censors the complex net of instinctive irrational forces which inevitably guide much of humanity's life. Recipe for alienation...

[justinwlaurab]

She meant in every way that it is objective--and it is.

Consider: The more strongly you believe a statement, the more wrong you are? Does this apply to a statement lik "the more strongly a thinker asserted his objectivity, the further from it he actually ended up."? Is "the Earth is round, not flat" wrong then?

Also, alienation is not a necessary result of following any philosophy.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here though.

[squaretriangle]

There are no "kinds" of rationality.

[ronrutherford]

Don, I noticed in your critique of Rand, much like virtually all critiques I read about her, is stunningly lacking any real information or insight into what is wrong with objectivism... just extremely broad and blanketed complaints that don't really say anything. Do you expect to convince people who are actually "objective" with such a method?

[efox72]

@ronrutherford

I have encountered nothing but the same.

[DonVoghano]

Objectivism is a fanatic fantasy. Objectively speaking.

[DeeperBlueX16]

so, if objectivism is a fanatic fantasy (an objective statement) does that include your statement?

contradicted yourself there, buddy

[justinwlaurab]

Whenever people use that little quip 'Objectively speaking" at the end of a criticism of Objectivism, I always know they don't understand Objectivism.

[tlwalrus]

I had no idea Chris Lydon and Jimmy Wales ever crossed paths. TWO OF MY FAVORITE PEOPLE.

[caliagent619]

jimmy decided to go into information control or watering down of information or hes at the for front of information war fare waging it at citizens, sold the porn company to get destroy information dirty rat ZIONIST WASTE FLEES DON'T WANT TO EAT jimmy y did you stop selling porn? not ethical so wikipidia is?

[justinwlaurab]

Then start your own successful online information hub. See how hard it is.

[RyanPig]

It's up to the individual to judge the merit of a Wikipedia article. The best way is to not stop at the Wiki page. There is the ever-ignored reference section to other encyclopedias, news articles ETC.

[johnisfun]

well said.

[qtronman]

I used to watch Jimmy Wales debate Objectivism in the good old days of Internet newsgroups.

[grantsinmypants2]

Oh, and Wikipedia be a far better, more reliable encyclopedia if it were for profit.

How is the documentation of facts artistically creative? What artistic integrity is there to preserve?

[Vettezuki]

It's not about your conception of "art", but of the integrity the creator has to their vision. There's also the question of the volitional as it relates to objectivism.

[grantsinmypants2]

And that vision being what, exactly? Truth by consensus, shrouded over with a bunch of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo about statistics, all hoping to be bypassed by a 99% accuracy rate?

Doesn't seem very "Roarkian" to me. In fact, isn't that the epitome of Peter Keating's attitude.

What about that 1% of the time? That tiny part that defines greatness, which in the context of encyclopedia making, can only be defined as adhearance to truth above all other factors.

[Vettezuki]

The mechanism of Wikipedia tolerates a small percentage of error (with a built in mechanism for highlighting it) in the name of continuous direct expansion, something no other Encyclopedia has ever accomplished. To say nothing of the fact is more encompassing than any Encylopedia has ever been. Anyway, he's carrying out his vision, rationally, to the best of his ability. I think that's all Rand was suggesting a person do with their lives.

[grantsinmypants2]

"Error", in this context, meaning what, exactly? In a regular encyclopedia, nothing is published until it's verified. In Wikipedia, nothing is verified until it's published. And that's assuming that it is verified, which it may not be. And, even then, "verified", in the Wikipedia sense, essentially means agreed upon.

I don't consider expansiveness as more valuable than accuracy...

[grantsinmypants2]

...A wrong answer is no more valuable than no answer. In fact, it's worse. Ayn Rand said as much when she discussed the cognitive effect of the arbitrary.

He might be carrying it out, but I don't consider Wales' vision as rational and I don't think Ayn Rand would approve wholesale like he thinks she would. She was first and foremost a metaphysician and an epistemologist, before she was an ethicist.

[Vettezuki]

In a purely logical sense, a statement which is demonstrably false is an error. For purely technical subjects which have absolute correct and incorrect answers, I agree with you. However, an enormous portion of what's covered by WP is not purely logical subject matter. You don't *consider* expansiveness as more *valuable* than accuracy. Fine. It is voluntarily created and apparently has some value to others. You are not compelled to use it.

[grantsinmypants2]

Ah, the tactical retreat into the realm of political freedom. The last bastion of a beaten debator.

[Vettezuki]

Apparently my other answer didn't get submitted for some reason. But I'll take a different tact. Are you suggesting that traditional encyclopedias were objects of perfection because of the processes used to create them? Or that the process of creating a traditional encyclopedia is the best objective process and therefore resources like WP shouldn't exist? I didn't say anything about politics, a relation of the individual to state, but of you privately to another private entity.

[grantsinmypants2]

I'm saying that the same verification standards journalists use are used in regular encyclopedias. It may be that WP uses the same standards, but the difference is that it's vetter after, rather than before, it's published

Now, I guess I could just look to see the page's status, but why should I have to? Id rather just use a finished product

As for politics, what I meant was just saying "well, if you don't like it, you don't have to use it" isnt an answer to whether or not its worthwhile

[Vettezuki]

Well many so-called journalists of all stripes don't verify for crap. HOWEVER, people *believe* that they are operating on this high standard and take on faith what they are providing. This is a problem. I'd much rather have open contention between different lines of thought with references. I'll have a better chance of sorting things out that way. IMO WP, for the reasons the founder explains, is a useful top level resource for quick reference. I would NOT depend on it exclusively for anything.

[grantsinmypants2]

I disagree with your implicit assertion that there are no objectively superior and/or completely valid methods for verification and presentation of information.

I do agree with you that WP is a good top level resource. But if that's the case, why have you been defending it as an encyclopedia this whole time?

[Vettezuki]

That most certainly was not my assertion. There are objectively superior methods of validating information, especially for any *technical* subjects where information is subject to true/false analysis. If your point is that you are concerned about the possibility of the WP model replacing rigorous scholarly practices, I understand and agree at least to some degree. I simply see it as another useful easy resource at a less rigorous level.

[grantsinmypants2]

Well, I don't think that anything - no matter how "untechnical" - that is beyond the reach of true/false designations.

Neither does Ayn Rand.

[plemke1]

As the expansiveness slows the accuracy will pick up. One should never take in any information that can not integrated into the sum of one's knowledge unless of course one consider one's self to be completely uneducated in which case ones should take all information in that one can and then try to decipher truth through logic. The extent to which one has knowledge should be the extent to which you can judge more accurately truth. Wikipedia is a great place for facts but always verify facts.

[FriscoCDASdAnconia]

"When I die, I hope to go to heaven - whatever the hell that is - and I want to be able to afford the price of admission."

"Virtue is the price of admission," Jim said haughtily.

"That's what I mean, James. So I want to be prepared to claim the greatest virtue of all - that I was a man who made money."

"Any grafter can make money."

"James, you ought to discover some day that words have an exact meaning."

(Franciscod'Anconia:JamesTagga­rt/AtlasShrugged/AynRand)