| | Joe:
Lindsay and Alec, I appreciate the arguments against the Atlas point system. It's not perfect. But really, it works great! Better than ever expected! In the old days, when you wrote an article, nobody who liked it or agreed bothered to post. The only people who posted (generally) were those that disagreed with some point, or wanted to hear themselves talk. If someone agreed with everything, and didn't have anything interesting to contribute, they would just leave it. So authors never got feedback. How fun is writing for SOLO when nobody responds to your article at all? We have a system now where people get applauded for their contributions by a click of the button.
When first I arrived, less than two months ago, I had my doubts about those Little Globe Guy points.
But as one who's interested in pushing the envelope on philosophy, even if it takes Objectivists into unfamiliar territory or contradicts orthodox views, I soon noticed something interesting about this push-button applause.
People will often click their approval of views even when they may be unwilling to voice an outright endorsement.
If somebody wants to rack up the Atlas points, of course, write something praising and extensively quoting Ayn Rand. (She did, after all, have many praiseworthy ideas!)
But that comes as no surprise. The surprise here is the level of quiet affirmative feedback for ideas which may challenge the conventional wisdom. And THAT, if Objectivism is not to become a stagnant philosophical backwater, is a healthy thing!
I agree that the Little Globe Guys are helpful.
Honestly, no matter what you do some people are going to be pissed off. No matter how vicious and disgusting the person is, some people are going to rally to his defense and others are going to attack the decision makers for not somehow converting him into a nice, friendly person. There are no easy answers here that make everyone happy.
True. But I doubt any of the suggestions you're getting have "making everyone happy" as a premise, Joe.
The premise is that some procedures and organizational structures tend to have different consequences than others.
All too often, the founders' instincts for what it takes to get a movement or organization off the ground are right, but wrong for what it eventually takes for growth and maturation.
I'll mention it again, as I have your ear, Joe: Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, himself an Objectivist, may be able to offer some suggestions. That phenomenon has gotten rather large, has had its own growing pains. His experience might be valuable, if he's willing to share it.
Nathan Hawking
|
|
