Wikipedia: Non profit, community or Cult

Good, bad, biased, paid or what-have-you. There's an endless supply.
Post Reply
User avatar
Kumioko
Sucks Mod
Posts: 860
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:54 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 177 times

Wikipedia: Non profit, community or Cult

Post by Kumioko » Sat Jul 09, 2022 7:22 pm

Over the course of it's history Wikipedia has become a household name, but is it famous or is it infamous.

Wikipedia defines a non profit as a legal entity organized and operated for a collective, public or social benefit, in contrast with an entity that operates as a business aiming to generate a profit for its owners. Wikipedians are volunteers who contribute to Wikipedia by editing its pages, unlike readers who simply read the articles and a cult can be defined as a social group defined by its religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs and rituals OR its common interest in a particular personality, object, or goal.

In this article dated May 2009, The Guardian lays out some of the telltale signs of a cult: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... n-religion

1. A charismatic leader - I think we can all agree, whether we personally like him or not, this would be Jimbo Wales.
2. A process [of indoctrination or education is in use that can be seen as] coercive persuasion or thought reform [commonly called "brainwashing"]. - I would argue that the community guidelines, Manual of style and the near countless policies and essays would fit this criteria.
3. Economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie. - This is debatable but I would argue that this criteria is met through the economic and other categories.

The Guardian further outlines 10 warning signs of a potentially unsafe group or leader:

- Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability. - Admins, WMF, Functionaries, etc.
- No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry. - Yep, this criteria is met
- No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget or expenses, such as an independently audited financial statement. - IMO this is met, at least in regards to the Trust
- Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions. - This one seems to be met
- There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil. - Same old thing here. Wikipedians good, everyone else bad.
- Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances. - I'll vouch for this one.
- There are records, books, news articles, or broadcast reports that document the abuses of the group/leader. - Again, many reports of this
- Followers feel they can never be "good enough". - Criteria met
- The group/leader is always right. - Criteria met
- The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible. - Criteria met

There is also one other criteria that doesn't appear in this article but I have seen mentioned before regarding other cults. An unhealthy obsession with money.
#BbbGate

User avatar
Daniel Brandt
Sucks
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 11:14 pm
Been thanked: 110 times

Re: Wikipedia: Non profit, community or Cult

Post by Daniel Brandt » Sun Jul 17, 2022 1:26 am

Thanks for this post about Wikipedia as a Cult. I became interested in cultism in the early 1970s, when the anti-Vietnam War movement started to burn out on campuses and communes all across the U.S. At that time I was doing real stuff like draft counseling over the campus radio station (which could be heard across all of southern California), fighting my draft board in the courts, etc.

But until I read your post, I never made the connection between 1) what I went through with Slimvirgin and my anti-Wikipedia efforts, and 2) the nation-wide 1970s burnout that almost demoralized me during my efforts to oppose U.S. policy in Vietnam. Both experiences were similarly depressing.

But now I see both in context. Which is to say, "It's not me, it's them!"

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Wikipedia: Non profit, community or Cult

Post by ericbarbour » Sun Jul 17, 2022 2:05 am

Kumioko wrote:
Sat Jul 09, 2022 7:22 pm
In this article dated May 2009, The Guardian lays out some of the telltale signs of a cult: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... n-religion
I should add: the Guardian ran this editorial around the time Seth Finkelstein, an early Wikipedia editor and one of Wikipedia's first critics with a media outlet, had his Guardian contract ended. By an "unspecified change in management", and for unspecified reasons. I think this was his last editorial, in 2009.

And not long after the Ross editorial ran and Finkelstein was shoved out, the Guardian became blindly supportive of King Jimbo The Questionable and the magical "Wikipedia revolution". With very few exceptions, this 2012 essay being one of them.

Ask Greg Kohs if you don't believe me.
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 14#p164814

Starting in 2007, Seth received "treatment" from the Wiki-Bastards similar to what they did to Daniel. His BLP became hostile and libelous. Then it was deleted and restored, over and over. Finally vanished in 2013 with no warning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... inkelstein
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _%282nd%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ecember_30
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... October_10
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... inkelstein

What a charming shitshow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... on=history

And let's not forget this notorious 2012 IRC squabble, with Seth making statements and Jimbo screaming at him:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_off ... 2012-01-12

Plus I would still like to know what the hell happened at GMG to trigger all this suckuppery to Wales. The only discussions have tended to end up assuming he started making legal threats using the UK's more lenient approach to libel law, so they folded like wet toilet paper.

Then in 2016 the assholes REALLY went too far, and put Wales on their board of directors. A guy who knew FUCK-ALL about newspapers and was only talented at talking about Ayn Rand and manipulating people on a website. Disgusting. Clear proof that journalism is declining IMO.

And if anyone wants to start that "Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED" crap again, remember this.

Post Reply