i was gonna ask teh same thing as Michael. Who doesnt want you to build it? I'm personally skeptical that the World Needs Another Wiki (WNAW) but it isnt a bad idea, in fact its a good one.
I should have kept copies of some of the stuff from your old wiki, Dean. Do you still have any of it?
A good place to start would be debunking the claim that the sole reason that the U. S. invaded Iraq was concern about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. I seem to recall that the old wiki's entry on that was pretty good.
No, Aziz. I read the whole thing. I know you don't have a high opinion of my reading and reasoning skills, but I always read the whole thing.
Here's a sequence of events:
Aziz: "Build your wikis and marshal your comment hordes and engage in your dialouges and Scoop yourselves to nirvana. It doesn't make a lick of difference. True policy is being shaped in forums and avenues far beyond your ken - I will point you to them if you ask me. Nicely. But if you come carrying a blame agenda, then point that sucker at yourself, because YOU are the problem."
Dean: "Truth of the matter is that it upsets them. They know it can make a real difference in the public debate. They know that policymakers and other influential people will read it."
Michael: "Where are people saying they don't want you to build it?"
Aziz: "I'm personally skeptical that the World Needs Another Wiki (WNAW) but it isnt a bad idea, in fact its a good one."
Assume that your first statement was the madness of a sleep deprived new parent and the second statement more accurately reflects your opinion. The second statement still does not disprove the hypothesis that Dean's is a reaction to your first statement, since the second statement had not yet been made when Dean made his statement.
Truth of the matter is that it upsets them. They know it can make a real difference in the public debate. They know that policymakers and other influential people will read it
So far, we have Aziz. Who are the rest of the "Theys"?
With Aziz, that's five without leaving this blog. If I went to other blogs looking for reactions, I would find more, I'll bet. And maybe Dean's seeing stuff in his email besides.
I just have one major problem: the use of "Truth" in the site's name and domain.
Almost without exception, every organization, news organ, movie, or other entity with "Truth" in its name has been a hopelessly partisan, often comically insane paranoia factory. It's almost become a rule of thumb with me, which is why this bugs me: if you have to put "Truth" in your name, then what you're peddling is anything but.
"Pravda" was once understood to be a sick joke. I fear we've forgotten.
Martin: One of those quotes is attributable to me, and I was not against the Wiki. I was against the cherry picking of contributors who are supportive of the idea that Iraq is a bed of roses.
Brian: Like all those countries with "Democratic Republic" in the name, yeah.
Real ones don't need to posture.
(Of course, the "Truth About Iraq" wiki would at least have the advantage of being designed specifically [as I envision it, at least, having not read any of Dean's Detailed Plans, if he's made any] to document the already-available truth.
While the name sounds like a bad sign, as long as it simply summarises and links to the primary sources, it's better than any other thing with "truth about" in its name that I've ever seen.
The real problem, of course, is that it's unlikely to change minds. The True Believers aren't going to be swayed by mere facts, and people who aren't True Believers are unlikely to care very much at this point.)
You're right, Sigivald, but it would be handy to have a resource to point to that documents specific issues thoroughly.
However, that reminds me of a joke that's a favorite in our household.
A new convict has come into the prison and he's surprised the first night to hear his fellow-inmates calling out numbers. One inmate calls out a number and everybody laughs.
When he asks about it, it's explained that years ago a convict received a joke book. They've heard the jokes so often that they just refer to them by their numbers, they remember the joke, and everybody laughs.
That night—same thing. Somebody calls out a number—everybody laughs. But when one voice calls out a number, nobody laughs. The new convict asks about it. The answer “Oh, he has a lousy delivery”.
I was against the cherry picking of contributors who are supportive of the idea that Iraq is a bed of roses.
In other words, Michael, before a single line had been posted to the Wiki -- before the name had even been registered -- you knew exactly what was wrong with it.
Almost without exception, every organization, news organ, movie, or other entity with "Truth" in its name has been a hopelessly partisan, often comically insane paranoia factory. It's almost become a rule of thumb with me, which is why this bugs me: if you have to put "Truth" in your name, then what you're peddling is anything but.
Couldn't agree more. Truth in the name of any site whether news, blog or wiki turns me off as a probable partisan hack job before I have seen it. Of course this would be an exception for me because I am familiar with Dean and the gang here.
However the name will probably keep many people from ever reading it of their own free will unless you drag them there with a link.
I refuse to accept an Orwellian world where the liars are free to use the word "truth" but the truth-tellers have to call the truth something else.
Martin,
Refuse to accept it all you like, but as sad as it is, the word "truth" any headline or site name will very often raise a skeptical brow, regardless if it involves honesty or deceit, wisdom or stupidity.
Yes fortunately it will get linked and read, hopefully quite a lot. However if it only discourages just a few, that is a negative, not a plus. But as you say it is already registered, I just think it was an unwise move.
Dean, I lost your email address, but I wanted to tell you I would like to contribute.
In particular, I am interested in three issues: the Niger yellowcake flap, the myth that the CIA 'put Saddam into power', and the myth that the US 'armed Saddam'.
Plus, I gave you a nod on this project (also at Say Anything), don't know if you saw that or not.
I, for one, really look forward to reading the Truth about Iraq wiki and completely disagree that using the word "truth" in the title was a mistake. The intention seems to be to correct false impressions and to refute common arguments and including "truth" in the title is accurate, appropriate, and wise. Abandoning the word "truth" to those who misuse it, and *because* they misuse it, is silly, in my opinion. You may as well argue that people could be turned off by the word "Iraq".
4.30.2007 7:49pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
Where are people saying they don't want you to build it? I haven't seen any outcry, or any comments on it at all, actually.
So I am just wondering if people are actually upset about it, or if you are just trying to create your own controversy?!
A good place to start would be debunking the claim that the sole reason that the U. S. invaded Iraq was concern about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. I seem to recall that the old wiki's entry on that was pretty good.
I thouhgt so.
Here's a sequence of events:
Aziz: "Build your wikis and marshal your comment hordes and engage in your dialouges and Scoop yourselves to nirvana. It doesn't make a lick of difference. True policy is being shaped in forums and avenues far beyond your ken - I will point you to them if you ask me. Nicely. But if you come carrying a blame agenda, then point that sucker at yourself, because YOU are the problem."
Dean: "Truth of the matter is that it upsets them. They know it can make a real difference in the public debate. They know that policymakers and other influential people will read it."
Michael: "Where are people saying they don't want you to build it?"
Aziz: "I'm personally skeptical that the World Needs Another Wiki (WNAW) but it isnt a bad idea, in fact its a good one."
Assume that your first statement was the madness of a sleep deprived new parent and the second statement more accurately reflects your opinion. The second statement still does not disprove the hypothesis that Dean's is a reaction to your first statement, since the second statement had not yet been made when Dean made his statement.
With Aziz, that's five without leaving this blog. If I went to other blogs looking for reactions, I would find more, I'll bet. And maybe Dean's seeing stuff in his email besides.
The AUMF is a good record of all the reasons for liberating Iraq.
Almost without exception, every organization, news organ, movie, or other entity with "Truth" in its name has been a hopelessly partisan, often comically insane paranoia factory. It's almost become a rule of thumb with me, which is why this bugs me: if you have to put "Truth" in your name, then what you're peddling is anything but.
"Pravda" was once understood to be a sick joke. I fear we've forgotten.
Real ones don't need to posture.
(Of course, the "Truth About Iraq" wiki would at least have the advantage of being designed specifically [as I envision it, at least, having not read any of Dean's Detailed Plans, if he's made any] to document the already-available truth.
While the name sounds like a bad sign, as long as it simply summarises and links to the primary sources, it's better than any other thing with "truth about" in its name that I've ever seen.
The real problem, of course, is that it's unlikely to change minds. The True Believers aren't going to be swayed by mere facts, and people who aren't True Believers are unlikely to care very much at this point.)
However, that reminds me of a joke that's a favorite in our household.
A new convict has come into the prison and he's surprised the first night to hear his fellow-inmates calling out numbers. One inmate calls out a number and everybody laughs.
When he asks about it, it's explained that years ago a convict received a joke book. They've heard the jokes so often that they just refer to them by their numbers, they remember the joke, and everybody laughs.
That night—same thing. Somebody calls out a number—everybody laughs. But when one voice calls out a number, nobody laughs. The new convict asks about it. The answer “Oh, he has a lousy delivery”.
Maybe we could refer to the arguments by numbers.
42!
In other words, Michael, before a single line had been posted to the Wiki -- before the name had even been registered -- you knew exactly what was wrong with it.
But you're not a critic, no, not at all.
Couldn't agree more. Truth in the name of any site whether news, blog or wiki turns me off as a probable partisan hack job before I have seen it. Of course this would be an exception for me because I am familiar with Dean and the gang here.
However the name will probably keep many people from ever reading it of their own free will unless you drag them there with a link.
I refuse to accept an Orwellian world where the liars are free to use the word "truth" but the truth-tellers have to call the truth something else.
Martin,
Refuse to accept it all you like, but as sad as it is, the word "truth" any headline or site name will very often raise a skeptical brow, regardless if it involves honesty or deceit, wisdom or stupidity.
Yes fortunately it will get linked and read, hopefully quite a lot. However if it only discourages just a few, that is a negative, not a plus. But as you say it is already registered, I just think it was an unwise move.
In particular, I am interested in three issues: the Niger yellowcake flap, the myth that the CIA 'put Saddam into power', and the myth that the US 'armed Saddam'.
Plus, I gave you a nod on this project (also at Say Anything), don't know if you saw that or not.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.