MakerBot and Deletionism

-
I had never heard of desktop manufacturing before I began reading the on-line drafts of Kevin Carson’s bracing Organization Theory. But when I read Kevin’s discussion of the concept, I was floored—and very excited.

MakerBot is a new (at least to me) addition to the industry. And for anyone interested in a decentralized manufacturing model, its arrival on the scene ought to be of some interest for its own sake.

But I want to use its appearance as an occasion for a rant on another topic.

A few minutes ago, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales posted a Facebook status update alerting people to MakerBot’s existence. He wrote that he was surprised by the absence of a Wikipedia article about the company, which struck him (surely rightly) as doing exciting things.

I decided to look on Wikipedia for an article on MakerBot. Not surprisingly, someone who’s Wales’s friend on Facebook (or, perhaps, if his status updates also appear on Twitter, one of his Twitter follower) created a stub regarding the company in short order—no one would have had time to respond by writing a full-length article. And, equally unsurprisingly, someone flagged this micro-article for immediate deletion.

I’m a passionate inclusionist: I just don’t see who loses if an article someone wants incorporated in Wikipedia stays (as long, of course, as its not shown to be factually in error and uncorrectable). I hope this one does.

Comments

Gregory Kohs said…
Maybe the Wikipedia culture wouldn't have become so infected, had Jimmy Wales not behaved as an arrogant snob when the firm MyWikiBiz came along. You can read about MyWikiBiz on Wikipedia:

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

And you can also read Jimmy Wales' eventual (too late) apology for how he treated MyWikiBiz:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AArch_Coal&diff=258731121&oldid=224255965

Jimmy Wales set the tone for "stamping out" business-related articles, so much so, that at one time (I kid you not) there was a Wales sycophant calling for the deletion of a Fortune 1000 company -- the second-largest coal-mining operation in North America -- because it was "only" the second largest.

Wikipedia is a disaster zone.
September 28, 2009 at 8:50 AM
Kevin Carson said…
I've never understood the fanatical deletionist myself. Surely a petty authoritarian mentality.

When I was in grade school, there seemed to be someone in every class who went around saying "Teacher says to to this. Teacher wants us to do it that way. Ahhhhm.... I'm telling Teacher!"

You wouldn't expect someone like that to gravitate to Wikipedia, but apparently they do.
September 28, 2009 at 10:21 AM
t said…
Gregory Kohs,
Can you be a little more specific about what company you are talking about?
January 2, 2010 at 6:36 PM
Gary Chartier said…
My specific focus was on MakerBot--see the link to the company's site.
January 2, 2010 at 7:48 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians for Redistribution

-
Libertarianism is a redistributive project. That’s another way in which radical market anarchism is rightly seen as part of the socialist tradition. Statists on both the left and the right favor the redistribution of wealth. Libertarians, by contrast, are often assumed to be dead-set against all varieties of redistribution. But it’s important to see that whether this is really the case or not depends on how we answer several questions: Agent : who effects the redistribution? Rationale : what justifies the redistribution? Means : how is the redistribution accomplished? Statist Redistribution For statists, the agent of redistribution is the state. The rationales for redistribution are primarily consequentialist —it’s seen as designed to bring about some favored end-state—though it may also be used to punish the putatively undeserving and to reward the arguably virtuous. The means ? The creation of monopolies, the enactment of regulations, the confiscation of proper
Read more

Socialism revisited

-
I'd like to try to tie together and expand my observations re. the great “socialist”/“capitalist” terminological debate that’s been proceeding at C4SS and AAE . “Socialism” as Genus; “State-Socialism” as Species I think there is good reason to use “socialism” to mean something like opposition to: bossism (that is to subordinative workplace hierarchy); and deprivation (that is, persistent, exclusionary poverty, whether resulting from state-capitalist depredation, private theft, disaster, accident, or other factors . “Socialism” in this sense is the genus; “state-socialism” is the (much-to-be-lamented) species. Indeed, using the “socialist” label provides the occasion for a clear distinction between the genus “socialism” and the species “state-socialism.” Thus, it offers a convenient opportunity to expose and critique the statist assumptions many people reflexively make (assumptions that make it all-too-easy for political theory to take as given the presupposition that its subject
Read more

Nicholas Lash (1934-2020)

-
I learned a few minutes ago that Nicholas Lash had died earlier today. Nicholas was a brilliant, incisive philosophical theologian who was by far the most formidable member of the Faculty of Divinity at Cambridge during the time I was a PhD student. He was, as far as I'm aware, the first Catholic to hold a chair in the Faculty since the Reformation. (A laicized priest married to a former nun, he was not, like many people with similar profiles, an enemy of his church. He remained unapologetically and obviously Catholic.) Norris-Hulse Professor of Divinity at Cambridge and the holder not only of a PhD but also of an earned DD from the university, he was an elegant prose stylist whose work was rarely simple—he sought to remind us repeatedly of the complexity of thought, language, and the human situation—but always stimulating and insightful. He engaged with a broad range of topics and figures—from Newman (the subject of his dissertation and first book) to Marx to William Jame
Read more