Propaganda: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
(dealing with claim that usurpers are actually "stewards" (obvious propaganda, as what they do provably degrades the GFDL corpus in many cases)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Propaganda''' is not what we do here, although [[trollism]] to some degree is propaganda against [[sysop vandalism]] | '''Propaganda''' is not what we do here, although [[trollism]] to some degree is propaganda against [[sysop vandalism]], it's a response to mindless assertions like that [[usurper]]s can somehow be trusted as '''steward'''s. | ||
[[ | [[Research Wiki]] may have some propaganda in it, so we work hard to get rid of it, by getting rid of the opinions of [[no body]] (corporation, ideology, etc.). | ||
[[Wikimedia]] considers any discussion of [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]] to be propaganda, because, according to itself, it cannot possibly be guilty. In general its only real response is to encourage [[vandalism]] of pages like this. | |||
A better example of '''propaganda''' is the lies spread about [[Consumerium:We|us]] by the [[ | [[w:Nazi Germany]] and [[w:Soviet Russia]] believed the same things of itself, and many ordinary good people went along with the [[power structure]]. This is not necessarily evidence of evil in people, but, perhaps, willingness to go along with evil out of fear. For these reasons: | ||
In general any assertions of wrong-doing by a power structure are considered to be propaganda by people in that power structure, whose opinions of it should not be counted. | |||
It is not up to them to say what is propaganda about themselves since they are not in an objective position. If they wish to allege some more specific wrongdoing such as [[libel]], they may of course do so, but, they will have to actually address the claims made one by one, e.g. those that [[Wikipedia violates GFDL]] or others listed in [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]]. | |||
A better example of '''propaganda''' is the lies spread about [[Consumerium:We|us]] by the [[usurper]]s of other [[large public wiki]]s. Jealous of the fact that Consumerium is actually pursuing a real [[wiki mission]] honestly and lets any contributor, including [[trolls]], help it do so, the [[GodKing]]s of such projects rightfully consider us a threat to their power, and attack us at every turn. This is good practice for the day that [[Monsanto]] accuses us of [[libel]] or that [[Gus Kouwenhoven]] complains that we have hurt his business. To prepare to deal with such claims, we must get very tough now: learn to take all criticism in stride, and all bias likewise. | |||
''If we can't handle what [[User:Trolls]] dishes out, then, how could we ever handle the [[funded troll]]s paid to do this on a daily basis to [[Research Wiki]]? We need clear definitions of what constitutes [[vandalism]] as well.'' | ''If we can't handle what [[User:Trolls]] dishes out, then, how could we ever handle the [[funded troll]]s paid to do this on a daily basis to [[Research Wiki]]? We need clear definitions of what constitutes [[vandalism]] as well.'' | ||
Revision as of 17:47, 6 September 2004
Propaganda is not what we do here, although trollism to some degree is propaganda against sysop vandalism, it's a response to mindless assertions like that usurpers can somehow be trusted as stewards.
Research Wiki may have some propaganda in it, so we work hard to get rid of it, by getting rid of the opinions of no body (corporation, ideology, etc.).
Wikimedia considers any discussion of alleged Wikimedia corruption to be propaganda, because, according to itself, it cannot possibly be guilty. In general its only real response is to encourage vandalism of pages like this.
w:Nazi Germany and w:Soviet Russia believed the same things of itself, and many ordinary good people went along with the power structure. This is not necessarily evidence of evil in people, but, perhaps, willingness to go along with evil out of fear. For these reasons:
In general any assertions of wrong-doing by a power structure are considered to be propaganda by people in that power structure, whose opinions of it should not be counted.
It is not up to them to say what is propaganda about themselves since they are not in an objective position. If they wish to allege some more specific wrongdoing such as libel, they may of course do so, but, they will have to actually address the claims made one by one, e.g. those that Wikipedia violates GFDL or others listed in alleged Wikimedia corruption.
A better example of propaganda is the lies spread about us by the usurpers of other large public wikis. Jealous of the fact that Consumerium is actually pursuing a real wiki mission honestly and lets any contributor, including trolls, help it do so, the GodKings of such projects rightfully consider us a threat to their power, and attack us at every turn. This is good practice for the day that Monsanto accuses us of libel or that Gus Kouwenhoven complains that we have hurt his business. To prepare to deal with such claims, we must get very tough now: learn to take all criticism in stride, and all bias likewise.
If we can't handle what User:Trolls dishes out, then, how could we ever handle the funded trolls paid to do this on a daily basis to Research Wiki? We need clear definitions of what constitutes vandalism as well.