Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Wikipedia Bias?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

First take a look at these two wiki pages:

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Selfishness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism

I noticed a long time ago that wikipedia has a mainstream bias, but even taking that into account doesn't the article on selfishness a bit lacking?

I mean look at the other page. Full of quotes and even a picture.

I think the following sentences or some others should be included under the subtitle of objectivism:

In popular usage, the word “selfishness” is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment. Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests. This concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests is good or evil; nor does it tell us what constitutes man’s actual interests. It is the task of ethics to answer such questions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That page definitely needs more substance. Of course, not just Objectivism, but notions of selfishness from the mainstream and also from various philosophers down the ages. Following the link to "Enlightened Self-interest" one sees a little more substance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what should we put under objectivism? Any suggestions?

Has anyone here edited a wiki page before?

Editing is easy enough. Sign up, log-in, go to the page, click edit.

Given that it is the Wiki, there's no need to try to put in the perfect entry. Leave it better than you find it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In popular usage, the word “selfishness” is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment.

I don't know about popular use during the time when she wrote that,* but from my experience, this is off the mark.

In popular usage, the word "selfish" indicates not thinking of others, even being willing to slight others, in order to get what you want. Like most adjectives, it has degrees, which this passage ignores. From my experience, being "selfish" is used in "smaller" cases like cheating on one's partner, taking credit for work that is not one's own, or using another person as a "stepstool" to move up in an organization. Nothing about murder, corpses, or not caring at all for other people.

She was still, of course, quite correct in making the distinction between that, and "concern with one's own interests", because "selfish" is also used popularly to refer to not being altruistic, when someone wants you to be.

*-I do have a Webster's dictionary from 1967, and the definitions were as follows:

-"concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself"

-"seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others"

-"arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others"

I'd be interested to know which dictionary she used.

[edit] She gave the speech in 1964...it's hard to imagine the Webster's definition changing like that in just 3 years.

Edited by musenji
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Wikipedia has its formal and informal rules.

The main formal rule is that any statements should be justified by reference to independently published work - i.e. something "notable" enough in the world at large that somebody felt it worth writing about and somebody else felt worth publishing. So no matter how brilliant your ideas, they aren't going to be allowed on Wikipedia unless someone else has already found them worth publishing. Einstein is not welcome until he's published elsewhere! This rule makes sense - most people who think they have brilliant maverick ideas are crazy; and Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopaedia not a journal of original research.

Another formal rule is that only things that are "notable" should be included. "Notable" means "notable in the field", not "what someone thinks of this field when they are notable in quite another". Unfortunately that can be a matter of opinion.

The main problem with wikipedia is that any hot topic has gatekeepers who will remove your edits as soon as you add them if they don't fit their understanding of the state of knowledge. And of course Objectivism is not exactly popular among most intellectuals. A case in point is Hume's "is-ought" problem - I was surprised to find no mention of Ayn Rand's solution to that there, even though it is original and true - and published independently. That, however, is not enough for the gatekeepers - if you look at the "discussion" history of the topic you'll see why. The irony in this case is the main excuse for excluding Rand's solution is she isn't a "real" philosopher in the sense of having membership in the club - and she despised academic philosophy, and they are keen to return the favour. It is ironic because the same was true of Hume himself in his time. So Hume, a maverick "amateur" philosopher, introduced an important problem in ethics - but its solution is barred from Wikipedia by the article's gatekeepers, because the solution is proposed by a maverick "amateur" philosopher. And her work is not "notable" enough on this topic because academic philosophers aren't interested.

The problem is the same as the problem in philosophy in general: the majority of people in the "club", by grace of the bell curve, are second-rate thinkers.

By the way, there is an indirect pointer to Rand's solution to the is-ought problem in the Wikipedia article - under implications (for secular ethics) is a link to my chapter Good Without God in The Australian Book of Atheism. (That chapter is now also available on its own from Amazon as a Kindle download (you don't need a Kindle, there are free readers for most devices). But I imagine that's as much as will ever make onto that page until Rand's influence seeps further into the mainstream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...