Is it true that Wikipedia wouldn't exist if it weren't for Ayn Rand and NPOV is just Objectivism?
Yeah
>>7353997
The only thing that wouldn't exist if it weren't for Ayn Rand are Stirner threads on /lit/.
how much do you guys use Wikipedia?
how much do you read from Wikipedia?
how much of what you know is directly from Wikipedia?
when you hear about something, do you always look it up on Wikipedia first?
do you get the feeling that something is completely negligible if it is not already on Wikipedia?
do you feel the quality of Wikipedia is decreasing?
do you donate to Wikipedia?
>>7354094
Yes
>>7354094
The problem of Wikipedia is the problem of anarchism: cliques form and accrue authority.
>>7353997
Shit no. Wikipedia is actually closer to the communist ideal than anything. All work being voluntary, all decisions being on a consensus basis, all officials elected and recallable, etc.
>>7354094
>how much do you guys use Wikipedia?
Fairly often, to get a broad overview of something I want to learn about.
>how much do you read from Wikipedia?
I typically only skim articles and mine for other sources.
>how much of what you know is directly from Wikipedia?
Not that much. I've been reading and learning long before Wikipedia was a thing, and I'll always read other sources for anything I actually care about.
>when you hear about something, do you always look it up on Wikipedia first?
I don't look it up on Wikipedia, but I'll often read the Wikipedia article first just because it's one of the first search results.
>do you get the feeling that something is completely negligible if it is not already on Wikipedia?
No, what is or isn't on Wikipedia can depend on how hard some autist is willing to fight for his object of obsession.
>do you feel the quality of Wikipedia is decreasing?
It's always been shit.
>do you donate to Wikipedia?
No.
Jimbo is an Objectivist, but Wikipedia doesn't really engage in any Rand-type behavior. The "le objective reality xDDD" is just a bad rip-off of logical positivism, anyway.
>>7354157
Sounds a bit like Galt's Gulch.
>>7354094
Wikipedia is all about the scholarly sources. Using it for anything else is walking on thin ice.
>objective
>Objectivism
>scientist
>scientism
>positive
>positivism
>logical positivism
>materialism
>materialism
>idealism
>idealism
>realism
>realism
>realism
>>7353997
Wikipedia is the best source of knowledge on the Internet, fuckwit. Rand was a miserable cunt.
