<CPOV> The Wikipedia Cult

nathaniel tkacz nathanieltkacz at gmail.com
Mon May 31 15:37:57 CEST 2010

i don' think the question of whether wikipedia is or is not a cult is a
useful one. what is there to add by calling it a cult? what does it get you
besides a scary term? it seems clumsy and glib. i don't think there is any
insight in lengthy debates about this. our task here should be to aim higher
than these kinds of debates.

for the record, going by the wikipedia review definition one could argue
that they themselves have cult-like sensibilities: there one mad belief is
that wikipedia is a cult! (and of course it would be denied, and of course
that would only strengthen the argument, but not make it a good one!)


Nate Tkacz

Research Fellow,
RMIT University

Twitter: http://twitter.com/__nate__
Homepage: www.nathanieltkacz.net
Current project: http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/about-2/

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Jon Awbrey <jawbrey at att.net> wrote:

> Of course every cult or groupthinktank
> will have its checklist of reasons why
> it isn't a cult or groupthinktank ...
> There are numerous long-running threads
> at ''The Wikipedia Review'' on this issue --
> Here's just one:
> http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=17175
> Jon
> --
> inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
> mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
> knol: http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/3fkwvf69kridz/1
> oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
> _______________________________________________
> Cpov_listcultures.org mailing list
> Cpov_listcultures.org at p10.alfaservers.com
> http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20100531/a9ce554d/attachment.html>

More information about the cpov mailing list