User talk:Piotrus/Links

== (I apologize, in advance, for the length of the following salutation. It was somewhat, though not precisely, necessary. Additional apologies for the semi-obscure beginning and it's slightly manic tone.)

Maestro,

My initial process of thought, after first reading about you on Wikipedia Review(And in context to what I gather was, or is, a fairly infamous group e-mail list), went something along the lines of supposing you to be a mis-informant whose ethical standards lacked any background in logos or ethos. More often than not, the threads, which occupied my attention for the larger portion of the day, referenced you as being engaged in characteristics typical of a blasphemer, or an occultist fiend. Ultimately, and to your credit, I think this first impression was for the best; The extent to which you were portrayed as a Disney-style villain compelled me to inquire after your person quite extensively.

(I will keep the following summary of events brief- Social etiquette, and so on.)

Naturally, my investigation began, entrenched, in a reasonably eccentric confirmation bias against you. As mentioned, the unfavorable light in which you were cast prompted certain over-eager suppositions on my part, and it was by account of these suppositions that I resolved to A] observe and psychoanalyze you(The intention being to find fault wherever convenient) and to B] confront you while possessed of all righteously-indignant, Ayn Rand-style conviction via reason. Yes! I would hound after all the data that could be accrued and after sufficient analysis I would present an argument unto you, bringing the error of your ways to the foremost regions of your consciousness.

I am not going to attempt such a feat- I am not here (so to speak) for that purpose now. Indeed, neither am I here for conditions of psychosis, and I may account for my sanity with the following;

I had encountered your name during a personal vendetta against the whole of Wikipedia, of which I was still working through the research phase- Earlier in the day I had become doped up on obliviousness and not since come down, resulting in a very impassioned, and very bigoted crusade for academic integrity.

Observe: "Wikipedia is sloppy in it's rigorous discourses. Failing, as all plebian inventions ought, to capture even one iota of academic integrity!" And so on, into a blissful infinity of stupidity and lower-brain function.

Now, I imagine it would be becoming of prudence if I were to address why I am writing this to you. In summation of many more Id-style-stupid cognitive processes, and the miracle of acquiring knowledge therein; ''Governance, Organization, and Democracy on the Internet: The Iron Law and the Evolution of Wikipedia'' combined with your page of Wiki-wisdom effectively polarized my opinions towards yourself and towards Wikipedia.

For that, I wanted to say 'thank you'. And, though it is somewhat awkward to thank someone for their inadvertent influences, nonetheless- The clairvoyance with which you describe the hopeful ambitions for improvement of Wikipedia is extremely conducive to the revival of one's 'dead, adolescent idealist', and the practical, succinct identification of obstacles is a very... Wholesome incorporation of Logos, Ethos, and Pathos.

So, again, thank you very much. I have been disillusioned with the application of text as a device which solves problems, and it is reinvigorating to acknowledge the ways in which that can actually work. As such, I have created this account and am turning several ideas in my head over for what article I want to get informative on.

In respect to that, though, I read a lot today about how volatile the wiki-politics can be to a newcomer, or to someone prone to blundering because of novice-hood. I would really rather avoid setting off the ego of one of those puritan-fundamentalist-"True Believer"-types, or something similar. So do you have any advice on what I should or shouldn't address in terms of articles? And also, do you think it would be more worthwhile if I set up some wiki-wisdom bits and disclaimers across my profile for "don't kill me" before I start working on articles? Any aphorisms, proverbs, koans, and- why the hell not?- limericks are welcome.

Also, I would rather that I don't come off as completely useless with my pedantic sentences above and circumlocution: I browsed your sandbox a bit and thought about the research themes you have listed. First of all, I'm studying Cognitive-Neuroscience so your being a Sociologist struck me as being somewhat provincial(although, not in any religious/spiritual context) and opportune. I've always retained great benefits from collaborating with people whose focus is in an area of the mind/body that mine really isn't. Therefore I wanted to put forward the offer of critiquing each others ideas/writings/etc., general thought-experiments, and so on- If you end up wanting the perspective from a Zen-Cogni-neuro-sci-libertarian-Socratic-Nietzscheanite (I'm fairly certain there's an incompatibility somewhere in that list...) then I'd be more than pleased to trade analysis.

Last thing- With the research themes. By combining the dynamics of Wiki-government and Wiki-addiction you can deduce victim and martyr complexes in relation to addiction, positing that these complexes utilize V or M as defense mechanisms after neuro-chemical conditioning or, alternatively, as a sociological role (In the same way that there's a social role for the sick person- I can't remember terminology in sociology for the life of me.). Additionally, with the various epicenters of centralized control throughout the government structure of Wikipedia-As you were talking about in The Iron Law and The Evolution of Wikipedia with so many different, and loose organized structures- You can examine research on different types of psychological power/control within the oligarchy, but also examine the same things in the democratic aspects, and even in the non-organized level so that you're looking at many different types of power and the (potentially) several ways in which addiction can occur throughout each. Just a few thoughts I had when scanning your research list, and you might be able to do something with those thoughts- I couldn't really think of any place to go with them that was interesting to me.

Anyways, sorry for the length of this introduction, and for the large portions of half-nonsense.

Cheers, Maestro.

-Sojournofski ==