User talk:Kosebamse/Wikipedia is not a sentient being

Of course the anthropomorphism of "Wikipedia" is nearly unavoidable. Its origin is not that different from others of the sort, like "the market." I've been guilty of suggesting that AfD and all the XfD pages are the alimentary canal of Wikipedia, but I have also drawn a metaphor of Wikipedia as a plant. However, what you hit at is important. People who speak of "the market will" and "the market favors" and other nonsense are so committed to their analogies that they've gone off into Cloud cuckoo land. They are, instead of even speaking of the thing itself, speaking of the metaphor's vehicle. These analogies come up because of growth, and growth in a system, a human society, a culture, a plant, or a body obeys similar laws. The fact that they share the laws does not mean that they share anything else (it is argument by analogy).

What we are at Wikipedia -- what "Wikipedia is, really" -- is culture, and really the culture of Janus. We are walking forward as a cultural growth/integration while arguably assembling the cultural histories of several nations and ethnicities (and we are also, unfortunately, commenting on the contemporary). The rules of cultural assemblage are well studied and known enough that we should be able to wisely note where we are and where we're going. The problem is that there is yet another wrinkle to this complex, and that is that we're doing it all remotely. We do not meet. We do cultural work over wires, with ghost personae, and that adds an asterisk of sorts to the endeavor. We are spared the domineering person of the chief, but we are given the tyranny of the mob and the coordinated clique and (yes, I admit it) the bullying of the articulate.

In short, it's necessary to stop the argument by analogy, but it's somewhat useful, in miniature, to realize that all of these bad arguments are motivated by an effort to note the common laws of growth and accumulation (and acculturation) that are involved in human activities. Geogre 12:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The bullying of the articulate being the most agreeable of them, as it is, at least in principle, subject to the rules of argument and persuasion. And I see your point about the inevitability of the organic metaphors and where they come from; that should probably be in an explanatory sentence in the essay (feel free to rewrite, by the way). Thanks for your thoughts! Kosebamse 20:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Useful link, and Wikipedia doesn't love you
See also: Eventualism (a soft redirect to Meta).

Wikipedia isn't a living being that cares for you. The anthropomorphism of taking Wikilove to mean that wikipedia loves you is harmful. It contributes to the often-described phenomenon of burnout in experienced, knowledgeable, productive editors (=editors when they have reached their best). They have given so much and received so much back, from the kindness of other editors, that they start to expect Wikipedia herself to appreciate them, to know them. They start to think of themsselves as established editors, a common but deceitful concept. There are no established editors. There is no establishment. You are not wiki-famous. Venture outside the particular little corner where people do know you and speak kindly to you, and you'll see how unestablished you are. For your equanimity, for avoidance of resentment and burnout, repeat to yourself every editing day: "Half of them arrived last week. They don't know who Jimbo is; you think they know who you are?" Don't edit Wikipedia to get gratitude from her. Don't edit out of a sense of duty. Only edit if you enjoy it. The day you don't enjoy it, stop. It's not a duty, it's a hobby. Say after me: "Wikipedia is not my mother. Wikipedia doesn't owe me anything for being here. I'm here for me." Bishonen | talk 00:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC).


 * That's a fine and important point and worthy of its own essay, IMO. I am not sure whether it would fit into mine easily, but if you see how to do it, please feel free to rewrite. Thanks for your thoughts! Kosebamse 20:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

And leaving it to others means working for others
I'd add this to your penultimate paragraph: "When you leave things for 'Wikipedia' to take care of, you silently imbue these other people with a responsibility and therefore a power. You put other people in a position of being imposed upon or responsible, and you put someone in charge. There is no one at Wikipedia more important than you are.  There are people with varying degrees of experience and wisdom, but you are equal, and therefore the problem you see is as much your problem as anyone else's." Geogre (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that looks fine to me. This page has been somewhat neglected due to my inactivity but I promis to give it the attention that it needs. Thanks again and happy editing (no sarcasm intended). Kosebamse (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)