Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Objectivism

Want Objectivism included in philosophy topics?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Philosophy_topics#Ayn_Rand

byelf2007 (talk) 19 February 2012

to be polite here... stop screwing around and try to do what is best for wikipedia. if it really belonged there, the consensus would support it, if you want to add it by force of will, all you are doing is making the encyclopedia less worthwhile and encouraging more philosophers to tell their students to ignore it. if you want your idol's work to be taken seriously, take other topics seriously and realize the difference in audience, differences in kind that exist. philosophy is fundamentally about giving credit where credit is due, if you break that norm, you will only undermine your position more. --Buridan (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Buridan, first of all, this is not the appropriate place for this. My talk page is.

If you're serious about what you think of this, you'll take the issue to the administrators. If you just want to attempt to intimidate me, then you're not doing what's best for wikipedia. Try telling the administrators I'm acting inappropriately by bringing this issue to the attention of a relevant wikiproject if you think you can persuade them to your point of view. Otherwise, what's the point of this post?

Furthermore, on what basis do you accuse me of regarding Rand as "my idol". Because I think her philosophy is notable enough to merit inclusion? That's not a lot to go off of, but even if you're right, it's not relevant to accuse me of regarding her as such. It's a pointless cheap shot.

Also, you haven't accused me of doing anything wrong, aside from "screwing around". What does that mean? Having an opinion contrary to yours, and taking our debate to a relevant wikiproject? There's no harm in me bringing this issue to the attention of this wikiproject's members. "all you are doing is making the encyclopedia less worthwhile and encouraging more philosophers to tell their students to ignore it" How so? You don't say. And suppose more philosophers tell their students to ignore wikipedia. So what? We're supposed to not do what we think is good for the site, and instead cater to popular demand? What if our views are in opposition to theirs? "if you want to add it by force of will" You mean if I want to add it by making my case and bringing it to the attention of people who I think would be interested in presenting their views in addition to ours? "philosophy is fundamentally about giving credit where credit is due, if you break that norm..." How have I done so? These are all just a bunch of assertions without argumentation.

Finally, you haven't considered the possibility that all of this wikiproject's members who become aware of this issue and check it out will then take your side of the issue, thereby being detrimental to my desire for inclusion. So why did I put this here? Because I want more people involved in the discussion. And this is bad how? byelf2007 (talk) 19 February 2012

i only expect those wikiproject administrators to think. I mean really think, think much more deeply about their strategy than you are doing. If they want Rand to be a philosopher on any level and to be recognized as such, they are playing the wrong game by alienating philosophers. I also think that most of the people here will see you basically for what you are, a wikipedia protagonist and dilettante who think that by pushing Rand and Objectivism onto every single page you can, you'll gain popularity or some nonsense. That could work among the ignorant, but I think that the people who have been working on this topic long enough will tell you, that your strategy... is undermining everyone. It would be one thing if your position were true, objectively, but your position is akin to propaganda. I'll let them judge. I'm not here to intimidate you, I'm here to show you that you are being strategically naive and very silly. you are screwing around, by that I mean, you are being an amateur of the worst sort. You lack forethought, and you seek to attempt to win with majority from appeal to an outside project. That is always the best way to win, no? perhaps instead, you should try using judgement and reason. try being an objectivist for instance. --Buridan (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

First, you didn't explain this initially. You just made some assertions. So, yes, I do surmise that you were probably attempting to intimidate me, because if this really was your intention, why didn't you just say it right away? Instead you just made a bunch of vague statements.

Second, Rand is already recognized as a philosopher by plenty of people (albeit an unpopular one among those who have an opinion on her views). I'm not sure why you'd think my thought process is something along the lines of "Hm...if only Rand's philosophy were listed on the wikipedia philosophy topics template, then she's sure to get the adoration she deserves." And I'm not trying to get Rand "onto every single page you can". If that were the case, you'd see me doing it. At present, I just want Objectivism on the philosophy topics template (because of its popularity) and her definition of "concept" on the "concept" page (again, because of her popularity).

Also, I want consistency on this site. I often see Rand's views not included on a page about an issue which includes the views of relatively obscure thinkers, so I include her views. I do this with (popular) ideas I disagree with as well. I'm not an Objectivist, I disagree with Rand on her metaphysics, her ethics, I find many of Rand's political views to be absolutely repulsive, and many of her justifications for her opinions are incredibly bad (including many opinions I agree with her on). Does this all preclude my desire to have wikipedia pages accurately reflect what I think are appropriate standards for notability and consistency? Of course not.

You may disagree with the edits I want and you may think I'm just trying to plug Rand everywhere, but why does this mean you ought to take issue with me informing people on this wikiproject about this issue in order to have them be aware of it and get them involved in the discussion? If I think you're plugging X everywhere and trying to get inclusions that don't make any sense, am I supposed to feel compelled to unprofessionally belittle you by saying you're "screwing around" when you inform people in a relevant wikiproject about the editing issue you're involved in, on the wikiproject page no less? byelf2007 (talk) 19 February 2012

because i did want to say you were f*cking around. you are doing little than testing waters and playing games. you post one place 2 months ago, get rejected, wait, then try again yesterday and when that was rejected based on prior consent and consistent standards, you come here in order to rally support to overcome the consent and likely try to rebut the standard. that is playing games, it is 'screwing around' by definition. you are doing it all over wikipedia, basically completely undermining your own credibility, if you have any, and the pages credibility on which you post playing your game. I appreciate your right to play games on wikipedia, but all i ask is that you use some judgment and don't explicitly construct fundamentally misleading articles. --Buridan (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

"overcome the consent..." This implies that once a consensus has been established, it can never be overturned by more opinions from additional users. "you come here in order to rally support..." This implies either that I somehow have foreknowledge that anyone who chooses to become involved will take my position or that it's inappropriate to post "here's a recent issue, whaddaya think?" on wikiprojects, which is a common occurrence on wikiprojects. Telling me I'm "screwing around" by making people aware of an issue on a relevant wikiproject when it's a common occurrence is odd, especially when it's more appropriate to do so on my talk page. byelf2007 (talk) 19 February 2012

Buridan, Byelf2007's notification here seems entirely appropriate, since participants and lurkers at this page would presumably be able to offer informed feedback on the issue being discussed. If you think everyone who watches this project is going to support Byelf2007's effort regardless of whether it fits with Wikipedia norms, then you have significantly misunderstood the purpose of this project and who participates here. --RL0919 (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Project status

Is there any ongoing interest in this WikiProject? Aside from generic notification posts, no one but me has posted on this talk page or edited the main project page since 2013. Before I mark it with {{WikiProject status|Inactive}}, I wanted to raise the flag and see if anyone wants to attempt a revival. --RL0919 (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)