DavidOdden Posted June 17, 2004 Report Share Posted June 17, 2004 No, it isn't working, which is not good since I was planning to fill in the concept-formation / measurement omission stuff. Well, you can go to The backup install and work there. It's real slow, but it doesn't seem to lose things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted June 18, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2004 I think it will be a good place to start definning the Copyright status of this Wiki. The Wiki is currently liscensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. The Wiki is not working! It's currently running on my computer, at the linked URL. I spent several hours trying to upgrade it on this server, but it didn't work. I will try again if someone offers PHP/MySQL hosting, or when the final version comes out. Meanwhile, you can view and edit it at the alternative site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted June 28, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2004 The Wiki is back and better than ever! Unfortunately, the database/software upgrade resulted in the edit history and user profiles being lost, so you will have to re-create your profile. (For anyone interested in the technical details, the old database was not lost, but my hosting provider does not allow me to restore it because of overly strict MySQL settings. You can remedy this by volunteering PHP/MySQL web hosting for the Wiki. The old database is currently running on my pc.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted August 27, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2004 Another Wiki update: http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAS Posted April 16, 2005 Report Share Posted April 16, 2005 I just found this wiki and started working on it, is anyone else contributing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted April 16, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2005 You can follow changes to the wiki on the recent changes page. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAS Posted April 16, 2005 Report Share Posted April 16, 2005 I know... that post was more a bump to get people to look at this thread again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrs Posted June 22, 2005 Report Share Posted June 22, 2005 I have created an Objectivism Wiki ... It seems to me that the idea of an Objectivist Wiki is self-contradictory. People keep telling me that Objectivism is a closed system -- it consists of the philosophical writings of Ayn Rand (which she finished for publication) and those philosophical writings of other people which she specifically approved (for example the articles in the Objectivist Newsletter). But a Wiki is supposed to consist of writings by many people. And clearly, in this case, Ayn Rand is not around to give her approval (or disapproval) of them. -All content you submit to the Wiki, whether original or from an outside source, is assumed to be in the public domain, unless explicitly mentioned. -If the content is not the public domain, you must either obtain permission from the author or be the author. Ayn Rand is not available to give her permission to quote her in the Wiki; and it seem unlikely that Leonard Peikoff would give permission for wholesale quotes since it would decrease the value of his copyrights in her work. After all you would be competing with him and ARI. You should just convince Dr. Peikoff to let you gradually put OPAR online Good luck with that. And OPAR is not strictly part of Objectivism as defined by Ayn Rand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted June 22, 2005 Report Share Posted June 22, 2005 But a Wiki is supposed to consist of writings by many people. And clearly, in this case, Ayn Rand is not around to give her approval (or disapproval) of them.A "Wiki" is a particular means of structuring, posting and updating information. It isn't inherent in the Wiki concept that many people must create it. Id addition, your implication that Rand's approval is required is wrong -- if that were so, nobody could legitimately discuss Objectivism because Rand has not approved our discussion. All you need to understand is that the statements in the Wiki are not necessarily authoritative and definitional of Objectivism. Though in fact I don't see anything that's wrong in the Wiki.Ayn Rand is not available to give her permission to quote her in the Wiki; and it seem unlikely that Leonard Peikoff would give permission for wholesale quotes since it would decrease the value of his copyrights in her work. After all you would be competing with him and ARI.Permission is not required under copyright law, to include parts of either of their works in the Wiki. The "fair use" exception, where protected material can be copied for the purposes of discussion, is fundamental to copyright law. What's prohibited is ripping off and selling a clone of e.g. AS or OPAR. Such discussions do not damage the value of protected works, indeed they tend to enhance their value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrs Posted July 2, 2005 Report Share Posted July 2, 2005 The point is, and has been all along, that The Constitution is really poorly written. It is massively unclear. I agree with this conclusion from the thread "U.S.Constitution: What is wrong with it?" in the "Political Philosophy" subforum. Writing a substitute Constitution based on Objectivist principles could not be done in an ordinary thread. So it occurred to me that we could try to do it as part of the Objectivist Wiki. I suggest that a new section be created in the Wiki under Politics which would contain the following subsections: 1. a model town charter; 2. a model county charter; 3. a model state constitution; 4. a model national constitution; and 5. a model world constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted July 2, 2005 Report Share Posted July 2, 2005 It would be a fun exercise to take the U.S. Constitution as it exists and try to add/change/delete the bare minimum to correct it. [Judge Narragansett] had marked and crossed out the contradictions in its statements that had once been the cause of its destruction. He was now adding a new clause to its pages: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade …" Personally, this type of exercise would interest me more than trying to write a new model constitution. The reason is that I think the exercise would help me understand the current constitution much better. On the other hand, a blank-slate Objectivist constitution would not interest me personally in today's context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted July 2, 2005 Report Share Posted July 2, 2005 It would be a fun exercise to take the U.S. Constitution as it exists and try to add/change/delete the bare minimum to correct it.The ball has been set in motion. Under "Government", there is an entry to "Constitution" (here)). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted July 2, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2005 Personally, I think this project is pretty silly, but if that’s what you want to do, it's your time. But.. I can’t believe you butchered the preamble! It’s a perfectly good preamble and much more poetic that the text that replaced it. What sort of logic takes out the preamble but leaves in the 16th Amendment?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaloNoble6 Posted July 2, 2005 Report Share Posted July 2, 2005 One can't be both poetic and crystal clear, can one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted July 2, 2005 Report Share Posted July 2, 2005 But.. I can’t believe you butchered the preamble! It’s a perfectly good preamble and much more poetic that the text that replaced it. What sort of logic takes out the preamble but leaves in the 16th Amendment?? Well, it's not in page-proof stage. And there is tons of stuff that still needs to be deleted. Most important is, delete any use of the word "welfare". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted July 2, 2005 Report Share Posted July 2, 2005 It would be silly if it were an attempt to advocate a new constitution, not as a "do- it-on-paper" exercise at better understanding what's right and wrong with the current one. Ok, just a wee bit silly perhaps . Perhaps if one tries, one would find there is very little that needs changing. As for poetry, we'll need to look to one of our resident poets for help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted July 3, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2005 Editing the preamble is not “add[ing]/chang[ing]/ [ing] the bare minimum.” It’s a perfectly good preamble to begin with, but if you’re going to rewrite a nonessential part like that, you might as well start from scratch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrs Posted July 6, 2005 Report Share Posted July 6, 2005 1. Please add "Spell Check" to the editing function in the Wiki. 2. Please create a site map for the Wiki. 3. To whom should I appeal, if I have a difference over the content with another contributor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.