Thanks for the mention - but I think that while you’re entitled to your opinion, you’re wrong.

Mob mentality always comes into play when defining social mores and norms, regardless of governmental structure, which is what is getting mixed into this debate on all sides.

But I don’t see how all social media (and modern democracies) can be lumped in together when almost every government and social media is running their own flavor of governance to varying degrees of success.

And oi! your stars ratings are backwards from everywhere else I’ve been - didn’t mean to give you a 1 of 5… the opposite is what I meant!

I was expressing an opinion based on facts which I cannot elaborate upon for reasons of confidentiality but which mean I have first hand knowledge and understanding. That’s rather different to simply making assertions. I’ve extended Paul’s argument to talk about what people end up learning. And we believe what we learn. Right? Just as they did in places like Cambodia, Laos and every other tinpot dictatorship that exerts mind control over its people. That of course is the extreme end but it doesn’t invalidate the general idea.

If the source from which we learn is flawed then it is a subtle way of pitching an agenda.

“…almost every government and social media is running their own flavor of governance to varying degrees of success” Are you confusing ‘governance’ with ‘control?’ What proofs do you offer?

Finally - did Murphy pitch a pandemic? I didn’t read it that way. He offered a hypothesis.

Actually, I wasn’t the one to use the term ‘assertion,’ that was you. My summaries and opinions are made by experiences that aren’t confidential, and that I expounded on in the original article.

I don’t disagree with you on the point of agenda pitching thru editorialization.

In the context of these social media websites, I see the terms governance and control as interchangable, since the analogy to democracy has been used throughout this meme. It isn’t confusion, all governmental structures are a form of control (self-imposed or otherwise).

I think his hypothesis implied a problem inherent and fundamental to democracy that doesn’t necessarily scan.

The essential fallacy in this post is the notion that Wikipedia is or should be a democracy. It’s not - it’s a project to write an encyclopedia. Everything else is a means to that end. e.g. kicking off a point-of-view pushing nutter like Lawrence Solomon, bully pulpit of his own or not. He’s one of thousands before and thousands to follow.

[…] - bookmarked by 2 members originally found by nara912 on 2009-02-11 Wikipedia, people power and compliance http://www.itpro.co.uk/blogs/dennish/2008/07/16/wikipedia-people-power-and-compliance/ - […]