User talk:Jayron32/Orthodoxy and heresy at Wikipedia

My position

I have found myself a member of a heretical camp, and perhaps the most controverial one at that: Esperanza. I really believe that wikipedia's community aspect is what brings people here making the articles better. Conflict in a community of this size is by necessity inevitable, and groups like Esperanza are needed to help things along. Actions of such groups are often misinterpreted by the community at large, leading to further conflict. This essay was not intended to forward one position over the other, merely to attempt to provide an NPOV assessment of the situation as I see it now. --Jayron 32 04:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This position is great! I really didn't understand the main point of your essay until I read this paragraph, so I recommend that you copy/paste it onto the actual essay.--E d ^{¿Cómo estás?} 04:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's time for The Bread

After reading this, I like it. Good idea, thing is I could have sworn that you were Orthodox by reading the essay. But that's irrelevant, I believe all Wikipedians should read this and decide were the fall, I myself probably lean toward Heresy

†he Bread 05:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be a downer ...

I hate to be a downer, but this essay worries me a bit. Firstly, it kind of over-simplifies the issue. I don't see this issue as being a question of A vs. B, and I think that painting it that way could potentially be divisive. Second, the word "heresy" immediately conjures up images of persecution, with all the thumbscrews and racks that it entails. I don't think you mean to be saying that community-minded Wikipedians are being persecuted by those with a more narrow focus, but that could be inferred from your choice here.

I'm sure you didn't mean to do the above, but that's what comes across to me. While I recognize your good intentions here, I fear that this essay could be more trouble than you originally imagined. Sorry to be the bringer of bad news. - Che Nuevara 17:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

I've changed up the essay a bit, in good faith. Feel free to revert it if you don't like it. I don't see what Esperanza does as evil or heretical, and I don't thing anyone else should either. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 20:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your additions. I like much of the middle ground stuff. I tried to add some more stuff, changed the section titles again to be more neutral and tried to rewrite some of the new statements that may have been emotionally charged. I see the tension between the two extremes to be a dialectical tension in the Hegelian sense, and that is in the Thesis meets Antithesis creating Synthesis sense that I see the direction of this going. It is not to place value on either side, but to note that the tension (as opposed to conflict) is actually a necessary and desirable thing for the growth of the community. If people lying to each side of the continuum understand the other side better, than we can work together more than conflict. As a side note, I find it interesting that I have been accused of being too biased in favor of a) the orthodox side b) the heretical side and c) both extremes in this same talk page. I guess if you piss everyone off equally, you must be truly neutral! --Jayron 32 23:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found your article a perfect example of NPOV, actually. You can't please everyone. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 00:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice!

This essay sums up the various camps quite nicely. While it is by no means a comprehensive list of Wikipedia positions, it is a good start. Though I myself fall into the "heretical" camp, I can see, from the essay, the point of view of the orthodoxists. Good job! Al e thiophile ¹2₃ 23:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move

Now that the "Orthodox" and the "Heretic" sections have changed names, may you please rename this into something like "Positions on Wikipedian ideals" or something of the sort? bibliomaniac 1 5 03:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I kinda like it as it. Provocative. Perhaps maybe a change to "The Dialectic of Wikipedia" or something. But I will think on it. If the consensus is a name change, I will concur, but I think I like the name as is. It should have something interesting for a name. --Jayron 32 04:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, keep the name like it is. The name should shock since it will be interesting to see who people pin as orthodox and heretical. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 04:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New conclusion

Added a third section to the conclusions to bring it more in line to the structure of the rest of the essay. I also sprinkled in a few philosophical terms, like dialectic and Gestalt and references to Hegel. I can reword these if you think it makes the essay too inaccessable. What does everyone think? --Jayron 32 04:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, with these new changes, your essay says much more closely what you (as far as I interpret) intended it to say. Good work :) - Che Nuevara 06:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

false dichotomy?

Your essay does not consider that there may be a community whose purpose is to edit an encyclopedia. I think this is what they call a false dichotomy. The topic for your next essay should be: Is Wikipedia a website, or is it a database? Methinks it is both. Regards, MPS 22:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not read the essay at all, specifically the line where it states "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An editors only job is to create, to edit, and to maintain quality. People should come, with research in hand, to improve articles, provide proper citations, and make appopriate comments on article talk pages as needed to explain their actions"? Or are you saying that there are people here who just want to edit, regardless of sourcing, or keeping the articles in shape? --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 22:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to MPS: Read it again. The entire essay is about the dialetic tension between the individual (as an editor of the encyclopedia) and the collective (as the community) to create the synthesis position listed in the Middle Ground sections, which is exactly what you are talking about. The individual/collective dichotomy is a real philosophical dichotomy, especially highlighted by such widely varied traditions as Marxism and Objectivism, among others. Elaragirl had much to help bring these sections around, and indeed while early versions showed a false dichotomy, I believe the latest version has come to eliminate those problems. --Jayron 32 04:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are saying, but I want to offer a couple thought provoking critiques.

The fact that you divide the world into two groups AS YOUR TITLE makes it seem like you are promoting the idea that there SHOULD BE these two groups and that Orthodoxy is the right group.
maybe if you renamed the essay something catchy like "Wikipedia:It's the encyclopedia, stuped!" then it would catch on.
Clearly nobody would want self identify as a heretic. The fact that you call one position Orthodox and one HERETICAL seems biased against the "heretical" group. If this essay is to be embraced by the wikipedia community (on all sides... orthodox, hereticl, and middle earth or whetever) then you won't frame this as a battle between the good guys and the heretics, but as a tension between the notional ideal (writing an encyclopedia) and the practical reality ( perpetual and inevitable necessity to resolve interpesonal conflict.)
I agree that it's all about writing an encyclopedia, but I also think we have to account for the relities of interpesonal conflict. A helpful phrase I have learned is "the essence of conflict is a difference in expectations". These writings help us to set common expectations and reduce/eliminate the conflict that prevents us from writing and improving articles.
There is some irony that you have spent all this time writing this essay. If you really believed what you were writing about orthodoxy being the ideal, then you wouldn't waste your time writing essays. (get it?) So basically you have belied your own point by writing an essay about how meta-writings are unnecessary.

Full disclosure: I personally think that barnstars (at least the plain ones) are an important aspect of wikipedia culture to provide positive reinforcement of "doing the right thing" as well as assign some level of credibility to people. Also, I think village pumps and guidelines are useful, because they allow people to orient and act without reinventing the wheel... based on lessons learned from others. IMNSHO, if we didn't have some wikipedia policy metaverse to guide our actions, we would be edit warring all over the place. I agree that it's all about writing an encyclopedia, but I also think we have to account for the relities of interpesonal conflict. A helpful phrase I have learned is "the essence of conflict is a difference in expectations". These writings help us to set common expectations and reduce/eliminate the conflict that prevents us from writing and improving articles. MPS 03:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jayron's choice of vocabulary -- an orthodoxy vs. a heresy -- is intentionally provocative, & perhaps you overlook the subtext of this choice. I've seen a particular slogan often repeated in discussions on Wikipedia: "We are here to create an encyclopedia." Because no one would seriously object to this slogan -- who would think that Wikipedia's first priority is anything else? -- it has become a club used to beat on people who think that there ought to be other priorities, such as the care & nuturing of the community. It's a catch phrase much like the words "family values" or "the War against Terrorism" in US politics; who, except heretics or enemies of society, would be against either? So by saying that we must act in such-&-such way to protect (insert appropriate catch phrase here), anyone who disagrees is put on the defensive & forced to explain that they are not part of the fringe.

I don't think anyone disputes what our first priority in this project is: to create an encyclopedia. What I do think is disputed is whether community-building should be another priority -- although it would be clearly secondary to building an encyclopedia. Further, that dispute needs to consider is whether it is possible to retain valuable contributors in a project where there is no sense of community. Those who promote the orthodox view (to use Jayron's terminology) have failed to show that this is possible. -- llywrch 08:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two points

1. Early Wikipedia goals clearly included community building. The notion of individualist editing as contrasted with community building is new, and doesn't have that sense of 'orthodoxy'.

2. One of the most important aspects of Wikipedia is the way it teases out good knowledge from the interactions among contributors, through direct back-and-forth editing, through talk-page discussion threads, and through long changes in article shape and article-specific or subject-specific guidelines over time. These come directly through community of some sort, and cannot possible come from any individual. Your focus on encyclopedists as indivisualists who focus tightly on references and writing new material, is a bit off.

+sj + 11:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]