| | > Only Jimmy Wales can tell you why he pulled the plug on We The Living when he did." [Robert C]
I don't think the principals in these various ventures are the only ones who could shed light.
I wonder if the principle of and the need for "transparency", full disclosure, full explanation, prior wider-than-the-inner-circle discussion, polling, and questionnaires in movements and cooperative and funded-by-contributors ventures is clearly understood by leading Objectivists?
The failure to non-cryptically explain to contributors why the Atlas Society - a really, really good idea with the potential to 'grow the base' enormously - was cut off from funding springs to mind. "We decided to spend our money differently" does not constitute an explanation.
> "The signal to noise ratio on OWL was disappointingly low, for a lot of participants (that's why I eventually left)."
The "noise" and nonsense problem has been fatal for -every- Objectivist list that is largely unmoderated or self-policed:
i) Most Objectivists simply don't have a lot to say across that span of time without becoming repetitious.
ii) There is an attraction factor to fruitcakes and loose cannons and verbose pedants, and there is a seldom-resisted temptation to others to waste too much time and water down the level of discourse answering inanities. Which doesn't work.
iii) Bad money drives out good: There are always a few who seem to post every day on every thread sucking all the oxygen out of the room. These "frequent flyers" tend to be those with the least to say that is worthwhile ... and after a while, other people become inactive because the former were not moderated or given a posting limit. The too-frequent flyers also the ones most likely to be "frequent flamers".
iv) Most students of Objectivism simply don't understand the philosophy or its application from A to Z, having never gone through the taped courses (you can't get it just from the essay collections + novels). So there are endless elementary topics and they keep getting repeated and discussed with a lot of flailing errors, so that even those relatively new get bored and turned off.
> "A couple of controversies (like a fierce dispute over the utility of "energy" techniques in psychotherapy) brought heightened activity to the forum for a month to 6 weeks--after which the major disputants were pretty much burned out, and never contibuted anything of note again."
For a time, as on Solo now, one can find quite a few thoughtful and intelligent and articulate people worth reading. But they will ultimately move on to other things, burnt out from fruitlessly arguing with the unwashed - and those who do not bathe on principle.
If I were ever to start a list it would be a *heavily moderated* one.
Did I mention that bad posts drive out good ones?
Phil
Side issue: Robert, I hadn't thought there was a whole month to save things from OWL. I only got a few days notice via email. But if most people had that much time that would seem fair and adequate (and thus I would withdraw my sarcastic "good bye and good riddance" crack).
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 7/27, 6:08pm)
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 7/27, 6:15pm)
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 7/27, 6:19pm)
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 7/27, 6:24pm)
|
|
