4 ms·

Well, sure, it looks like one thing, but ... I took a quick look at what the "Wikiproject intellectual diversity" was actually monitoring. Specific articles o

Well, sure, it looks like one thing, but ... I took a quick look at what the "Wikiproject intellectual diversity" was actually monitoring. Specific articles or categories about things Mr Sanger finds interesting,right? Well, indeed: specifically it's all arbcom, admin elections, policy pages. You can check it out here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger/WikiProject_Intellectual_Diversity/PolicyScanner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger/WikiProject_... Then he canvassed people from outside wikipedia to help with that project. So he claimed to be doing one thing, but in reality it was more of a thinly disguised power play by the look of it.

MichaelZuo 4mo ago
This doesnt make sense… ? Clearly all significant names involved with Wikipedia, including admins, have some kind of ulterior motives, to some degree above literally zero. Unless you believe in literally perfect altruism 100% of the time. The degree can vary from one to another, but that seems like a much higher bar to confidently pin down.
- ImPostingOnHN 4mo ago
  You aren't allowed to build a live feed of wikipedia administrative actions that run counter to your political biases, so that you can coordinate a brigade of people who share your political biases.
  - MichaelZuo 4mo ago
    Did you reply to the correct comment? This doesnt seem to address my comment?
    - ImPostingOnHN 4mo ago
      Can you clarify how your comment addressed the one it replied to? Yours was a bit non-sequitur, so perhaps I misinterpreted the implication.
      - MichaelZuo 4mo ago
        Can you not see the last sentence? It’s literally directly addressing the last sentence of the parent: “So he claimed to be doing one thing, but in reality it was more of a thinly disguised power play by the look of it.”
        ImPostingOnHN 4mo ago
        Yeah, but that seems to ignore GP's whole post save for the last paragraph. The community discussion was around what he actually did wrong (which my post mentioned 1 example of). The bad ulterior motives may help explain the bad behavior, but the behavior is bad in and of itself. That's why I thought there was a misunderstanding when your post totally ignored the behavior.
        MichaelZuo 4mo ago
        This makes no sense. How can you know that is not part of the “whole point”? Presumably the sentence was included for some reason, not just pure random keyboard bashing. Unless you are the GP?
        ImPostingOnHN 4mo ago
        Are you interested in discussing the actual behavior this person engaged in, which is the subject of both the article and this thread?
        MichaelZuo 4mo ago
        Are you confused? You replied to me initially, I didn’t seek out one of your comments to reply to. And you still haven’t explained why you answered a comment believed to be a non-sequitor… with your own non-sequitor. Which still makes no sense. If you don’t want to answer any of the questions so far, you are free to leave.
        4mo ago
- m0d0nne11 3mo ago
  The notion that altruism exists - not to mention "literally perfect altruism" - is harmful. And yes, of course - a person can decide to do something that benefits others without apparent benefit to themselves.... until you realize that the decision itself is an inherently "selfish" act as it is based on something that has value to that person. This may seem like nit-picking until you realize how many vile schemes involve preying upon people after convincing them that they are insufficiently "altruistic".

MichaelZuo 4mo ago

This doesnt make sense… ? Clearly all significant names involved with Wikipedia, including admins, have some kind of ulterior motives, to some degree above literally zero. Unless you believe in literally perfect altruism 100% of the time. The degree can vary from one to another, but that seems like a much higher bar to confidently pin down.

ImPostingOnHN 4mo ago
You aren't allowed to build a live feed of wikipedia administrative actions that run counter to your political biases, so that you can coordinate a brigade of people who share your political biases.
- MichaelZuo 4mo ago
  Did you reply to the correct comment? This doesnt seem to address my comment?
  - ImPostingOnHN 4mo ago
    Can you clarify how your comment addressed the one it replied to? Yours was a bit non-sequitur, so perhaps I misinterpreted the implication.
    - MichaelZuo 4mo ago
      Can you not see the last sentence? It’s literally directly addressing the last sentence of the parent: “So he claimed to be doing one thing, but in reality it was more of a thinly disguised power play by the look of it.”
      - ImPostingOnHN 4mo ago
        Yeah, but that seems to ignore GP's whole post save for the last paragraph. The community discussion was around what he actually did wrong (which my post mentioned 1 example of). The bad ulterior motives may help explain the bad behavior, but the behavior is bad in and of itself. That's why I thought there was a misunderstanding when your post totally ignored the behavior.
        MichaelZuo 4mo ago
        This makes no sense. How can you know that is not part of the “whole point”? Presumably the sentence was included for some reason, not just pure random keyboard bashing. Unless you are the GP?
        ImPostingOnHN 4mo ago
        Are you interested in discussing the actual behavior this person engaged in, which is the subject of both the article and this thread?
        MichaelZuo 4mo ago
        Are you confused? You replied to me initially, I didn’t seek out one of your comments to reply to. And you still haven’t explained why you answered a comment believed to be a non-sequitor… with your own non-sequitor. Which still makes no sense. If you don’t want to answer any of the questions so far, you are free to leave.
        4mo ago
m0d0nne11 3mo ago
The notion that altruism exists - not to mention "literally perfect altruism" - is harmful. And yes, of course - a person can decide to do something that benefits others without apparent benefit to themselves.... until you realize that the decision itself is an inherently "selfish" act as it is based on something that has value to that person. This may seem like nit-picking until you realize how many vile schemes involve preying upon people after convincing them that they are insufficiently "altruistic".