tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post7979123599455502448..comments2023-11-22T01:14:54.298-08:00Comments on amor mundi: WikipitomeDale Carricohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-78033162593330129292012-06-30T14:17:08.070-07:002012-06-30T14:17:08.070-07:00It all sounds rather like discussions half a centu...It all sounds rather like discussions half a century ago of who's in who's who, rather silly. I don't mind that some people think I've made a splash worth splashing around in, in fact I don't think it's really my business whether some people think that or don't, to be honest. But these sorts of considerations are all rather embarrassing, you have to admit, at least to my way of thinking, and it is hard for me personally to separate what I think is broadly embarrassing about being noticed at all from what is embarrassing in the form that particular notice of being noticed takes.Dale Carricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-14116731737279418582012-06-30T14:00:29.530-07:002012-06-30T14:00:29.530-07:00> . . .not a significant person. . .
Not **not...> . . .not a significant person. . .<br /><br />Not **notable**, actually. That's the word they use,<br />and it has a quasi-technical meaning -- as in, not having<br />garnered enough attention from (themselves notable)<br />third parties to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia.<br /><br />Nothing to do with being worth the air you breathe, or<br />anything like that. ;->jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-21146898925357223862012-06-30T13:55:41.656-07:002012-06-30T13:55:41.656-07:00From becoming an unperson to being deemed not a si...From becoming an unperson to being deemed not a significant person would certainly offer an inspiring biographical trajectory for us all to contemplate.Dale Carricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-19572430761349248202012-06-30T13:54:24.814-07:002012-06-30T13:54:24.814-07:00If you google the phrase "equity in diversity...If you google the phrase "equity in diversity" it will be revealed as a fairly mainstream phrase in progressive left policy discourse. For what it's worth, I always thought of the "technoprogressive" term in much the same way. <br /><br />Definitely, I never used the term "technoprogressive" as a moniker for some New or Unique program or platform or philosophy or party. I have never approved of the racket in which, usually, a handful of snotty white guys try to attract attention to themselves by scribbling some generic online manifesto under the heading of some punchy neologism and then pretend that they are Very Serious and are Doing Something About Something. <br /><br />For me, "technoprogressive" was always a shorthand term for the gawky awkward phrase "technoscientifically literate and technodevelopmentally focused progressive," and I never thought that either mainstream or superlative futurological types, even in their most reasonable guises, were special exemplars of such an attitude. <br /><br />Indeed, I always used to describe "technoprogressivism" as a burgeoning tendency in mainstream democratic thought and activism, concerned with the defense of public policy based on consensus scientific and empirically validated viewpoints on climate change, Darwinian evolution, harm-reduction drug policy, health care and family planning, Keynesian macroeconomics, as well as support of net neutrality, medical research, space science, science education and critical thinking skills in schools, and so on. <br /><br />I think such concerns are actually far from aligned with the <i>real</i> priorities -- as against the sanewashing PR initiatives -- of superlative and sub(cult)ural futurisms of the transhumanoid, singularitarian, techno-immortalist, nano-cornucopiast, and greenswashing geo-engineering varieties. <br /><br />I still most of what I said when I was using the term myself is perfectly legitimate, but I gave up making this sort of case in these rhetorical terms because transhumanists were aping my discourse and deploying it in the service of their deceptive PR to seem like Very Serious policy wonks while in fact trying to promote their robot cult in mainstream media and attract members. I didn't want to be any part of that sort of thing if I can help it. I worry that I have already leant their project credibility by allowing them in the past to publish my criticisms of transhumanism under their own auspices, thereby creating the false impression that they were not primarily Robot Cult outfits but science policy and developmental ethics fora in which many Robot Cultists just happen to congregate. I never felt particularly comfortable about that, but gave them the benefit of the doubt, and I think my worst fears were confirmed over the course of the experiment, to tell you the truth.Dale Carricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-69042402845059049912012-06-30T12:50:32.084-07:002012-06-30T12:50:32.084-07:00Maybe an author thinks 'equity in diversity...Maybe an author thinks 'equity in diversity' is a technoprogressive slogan. FWIW, I just added <i>technoprogressive</i> to my spelling dictionary.Lorrainehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13567383019731167967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-73354067819505520702012-06-30T12:37:31.727-07:002012-06-30T12:37:31.727-07:00> The Big W's bureaucracy can be excruciati...> The Big W's bureaucracy can be excruciatingly anal-retentive at times.<br /><br />"Excruciatingly" hardly even begins to describe it. ;-><br /><br />> you can simply cite your blog posts as primary sources (or so I guess).<br /><br />I gather that reliance (or at least **sole** reliance) on self-authored<br />material is a big no-no for Wikipedia. Also "original research".<br /><br />Now if Dale could locate some **independent** source which describes<br />him more accurately (from his own point of view), then that<br />could be pointed to as justification for a Wikipedia edit.<br /><br />It could also be, though, that **any** new activity on Dale's<br />Wikipedia article could have the effect of alerting the<br />editor (or some other editor) who didn't think the article<br />should be there in the first place ("not a significant enough<br />person") to re-nominate the article for deletion.<br /><br />which might not be a bad thing, as far as Dale is concerned.jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-49184515976352259892012-06-30T10:22:51.929-07:002012-06-30T10:22:51.929-07:00I don't think it's an inexcusable faux pas...I don't think it's an inexcusable faux pas if the subject of an article edits it as long as one abides by their policies.<br /><br />I would do it myself, but I fear my wiki-fu isn't strong enough to make a lasting change. The Big W's bureaucracy can be excruciatingly anal-retentive at times. If I could just find the report in which a history professor writes about how he found a factual error in an article about a Gilded Age terrorist trial and was prevented from correcting it because it wasn't the scientific majority opinion as expressed in [x] books...<br /><br />You're better equipped to find the necessary citations as you can simply cite your blog posts as primary sources (or so I guess).Barkeronhttp://ultraphyte.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-45467017513174461142012-06-29T22:25:23.376-07:002012-06-29T22:25:23.376-07:00> I wouldn't object to a more perfect compl...> I wouldn't object to a more perfect completion. . .<br /><br />Well, seeing as he's taken some pains to polish the article<br />over several years (both the original that he wrote, and the<br />reincarnation following deletion), if you made a revision as you'd<br />like to see it and sent it to "Loremaster", maybe (**maybe**)<br />he'd be willing to perform the edits.<br /><br />(You could try editing it yourself, but I don't know if<br />Wikipedia officially frowns on that sort of thing or not,<br />apart from the embarrassment of it. It seems slightly less<br />embarrassing to let the original author decide what to do<br />with your updates.)<br /><br />I'd send him the email **and** put a note on his "Talk"<br />page telling him that you've done so.<br /><br />Or you could just ignore it all. ;->jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-21780470796820752422012-06-29T21:28:28.583-07:002012-06-29T21:28:28.583-07:00I wouldn't object to a more perfect completion...I wouldn't object to a more perfect completion, but deletion is preferable to the present excretion.Dale Carricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-59168519473424560872012-06-29T19:31:29.789-07:002012-06-29T19:31:29.789-07:00I note also that there was a nomination for deleti...I note also that there was a nomination for deletion in 2007, which went ended up with the content of the article at that time being merged into the article for IEET. Three years later, someone re-created it, at which point loremaster remade it into it's current form over the course of two days.<br /><br />I suspect another deletion nomination would succeed, if you're interested in that outcome.Stephennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-33950667802388025882012-06-29T18:05:49.699-07:002012-06-29T18:05:49.699-07:00> . . .if any of the people who are maintaining...> . . .if any of the people who are maintaining that page happen to number<br />> among my readers. . .<br /><br />Anybody named Desmond around here? ;-><br /><br />Well, your entry seems to have been originally written (9 Feb 2006) and<br />to have since been largely maintained (last edit 28 March 2010) by a Wikipedia<br />user who calls himself "Loremaster".<br /><br />Earliest 9 Feb 2006 (Loremaster)<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dale_Carrico&diff=prev&oldid=38965712<br />"Although sympathetic to democratic transhumanism, Carrico is not a transhumanist.<br />He describes his cultural and political views as techno-progressive or,<br />more precisely, as progressive."<br /><br />18 Feb 2006 (Loremaster)<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dale_Carrico&direction=next&oldid=39181411<br />Line "Although sympathetic. . .not a transhumanist." deleted.<br /><br />2 March 2007 (RJASE1)<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dale_Carrico&direction=prev&oldid=112915088<br />Article nominated for deletion.<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dale_Carrico<br />(Separate article deleted as of 7 March 2007, first<br />redirected to "Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies",<br />later to "Techno-progressivism".)<br /><br />22 March 2010 (Mporter) [Mitchell Porter!?]<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dale_Carrico&direction=prev&oldid=352194023<br />Separate (short) article restored.<br />". . .critical theorist and techno-progressive best known for his<br />criticism of transhumanism as a form of 'superlative futurology'."<br /><br />26 March 2010 (Loremaster)<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dale_Carrico&direction=next&oldid=351335679<br />". . .critical theorist best known for his criticism of transhumanism<br />as a form of 'superlative futurology' and proposing techno-progressivism as a more<br />rational alternative." Immediately amended to "a more rational alternative<br />to both technophilia and technophobia."<br /><br />28 March 2010 (Loremaster)<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dale_Carrico&direction=next&oldid=352449850<br />". . .an American critical theorist and rhetorician. He is best known for<br />proposing techno-progressivism as a more rational alternative to both transhumanism<br />and bioconservatism."<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dale_Carrico&direction=prev&oldid=392163388<br />". . .more rational alternative. . ." changed to ". . .more rational and<br />sophisticated alternative. . ."<br /><br />About "Loremaster" (who's gotta be a fan!):<br /><br />From<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Loremaster/bio<br />"Among the top 1000 Wikipedians by number of edits under the pseudonym Loremaster,<br />Desmond Collingworth. . ."<br /><br />From<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Loremaster<br />"I award this Barnstar to Loremaster for excellent work in<br />transhumanism related subjects. —Morphh 2007-2-20"<br /><br />"I'm just a doctoral student in political sciences and an informal<br />member of the Skeptics Society. --Loremaster (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2011"<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Loremaster/Archive01#Transhumanist_conspiracy.3F<br />"For the record, I am not a member of the World Transhumanist Association<br />(a membership organization of the transhumanist movement) or the Institute<br />for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (a think tank for transhumanist and<br />non-tranhumanist thinkers) nor do I work for either organization. However,<br />I have developed friendships with a few people who work for both these<br />organizations. <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Loremaster/Archive01#Singularitarianism<br />"And, between you and me, anyone who takes the content of that<br />quote [from Yudkowsky's "The Singularity Principles"] seriously enough to<br />wait around for this fantasy to happen when the world is heading toward<br />an ecological catastrophe, needs to see a shrink..."<br /><br />;->jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.com