The Anarchy Exemplified By Wikipedia Tells Us That It Works

[Rakhmetov]

We need more examples to convince benighted Americans of the utility of anarchism.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0504-27.htm

[fa2991]

People say the same stuff about free software. These are failed examples.

Face it, people, computer activity doesn't prove anything because resources are unlimited and you can totally control every facet of everything at all times, unlike in real life.

[Ovi]

People say the same stuff about free software. These are failed examples.

Face it, people, computer activity doesn't prove anything because resources are unlimited and you can totally control every facet of everything at all times, unlike in real life.
There is a lot of labor put into free software by the FOSS community. How is that unlimited? Unpaid, yes.

[fa2991]

There is a lot of labor put into free software by the FOSS community. How is that unlimited? Unpaid, yes.

Not labor resources - I'm think along the lines of hard drive space, number of redos, etc. It's not analogous to anything else except other stuff done on computers.

[Red Commissar]

Honestly the only thing these examples prove is the ever common mantra that people do things purely for some sort of personal gain. It shows that in some cases people may just do things out of a sense of purpose and collaboration for a greater goal, not so much a proof of a political idea like anarchism, socialism, or anything else.

[graymouser]

Not labor resources - I'm think along the lines of hard drive space, number of redos, etc. It's not analogous to anything else except other stuff done on computers.
Computers are a tool and have physical limitations. Just because these are really really large in some cases, doesn't mean they don't. Computers use every kind of resource, including some we would probably rather not think about (think of the heavy metals that go into every PC) and of course more typical ones such as electricity, etc. Computer work is real work - I know, I've been paid to do it for seven years now.

[fa2991]

Computers are a tool and have physical limitations. Just because these are really really large in some cases, doesn't mean they don't. Computers use every kind of resource, including some we would probably rather not think about (think of the heavy metals that go into every PC) and of course more typical ones such as electricity, etc. Computer work is real work - I know, I've been paid to do it for seven years now.

Not what I meant. I meant something like "Maybe you can build an encyclopedia without paying people" but it has nothing to do with external situations like "You can build a successful communist society by expecting people to work 6 hours a day in fields without paying them." People doing free stuff on the 'net doesn't help you in analyzing how to motivate people ITRW.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Wikipedia doesn't work. I honestly can't think of a worse example to use.

Not only is the quality of it complete shit, but I see loads of bias -- and not exclusively from tendentious pricks with an axe to grind. (That takes a lot of time to correct, and requires an expert willing to contribute.) A veritable torrent of propaganda and half-truths easily makes it in -- and it's also inserted by simple-minded people there every day.

It might not crop up so much if you're into material on celebrities, sitcoms, and popular culture, but if you read it for insight into politics, history, and even philosophy, it often misses the mark by a wide margin.

[fa2991]

Wikipedia doesn't work. I honestly can't think of a worse example to use.

Not only is the quality of it complete shit, but I see loads of bias -- and not exclusively from tendentious pricks with an axe to grind. (That takes a lot of time to correct, and requires an expert willing to contribute.) A veritable torrent of propaganda and half-truths easily makes it in -- and it's also inserted by simple-minded people there every day.

It might not crop up so much if you're into material on celebrities, sitcoms, and popular culture, but if you read it for insight into politics, history, and even philosophy, it often misses the mark by a wide margin.

True.

eaADQTeZRCY

[meow]

Wikipedia doesn't work. I honestly can't think of a worse example to use.

Not only is the quality of it complete shit, but I see loads of bias -- and not exclusively from tendentious pricks with an axe to grind. (That takes a lot of time to correct, and requires an expert willing to contribute.) A veritable torrent of propaganda and half-truths easily makes it in -- and it's also inserted by simple-minded people there every day.

It might not crop up so much if you're into material on celebrities, sitcoms, and popular culture, but if you read it for insight into politics, history, and even philosophy, it often misses the mark by a wide margin.
wikipedia doesnt work. well it certainly isnt anarchism. there is hierarchy with jimbo on top. admins in the middle. old users then new users and finally unregistered users on the bottom. (admins are probably segmented like users are as well).

not only that admins are constantly misuse there power. i cant be bothered looking for examples now but there are lots.

[synthesis]

I think that Wikipedia can be a reliable resource as long as you use it critically. Most people have probably heard that studies have shown Wikipedia to be comparable to Encyclopedia Britannica and Encarta in terms of accuracy in the scientific articles.

Obviously, in certain areas where support for a "fringe" idea (like pro-pedophilia advocacy) is disproportionately based on the Internet, you have to take it with about a truckload of salt, but I find it to be decent as a tertiary resource - that is, you look at a claim, check the citation, and peruse the secondary source it's based on. In other areas, it's not so reliable.

[ZeroNowhere]

Interestingly enough, Wikipedia is actually a pretty rubbish source when it comes to communism.

[fa2991]

Interestingly enough, Wikipedia is actually a pretty rubbish source when it comes to communism.

It varies. The stuff on Marx is actually really extensive cuz the commie readers flood it with excessive theorizing.