Talk:Technological utopianism/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Socialist?

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Where did this stuff about socialist techno-utopianism come from? Perhaps there are people who label themselves in this way, but as social movement it has had nothing like the kind of impact techno-utopianism had in the 1990s, when it was a leading paradigm in cultural discourse in various, highly prosperous parts of the world. -- Viajero 13:27, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Socialist" may not be the appropriate term. However, there is a long tradition of techno-utopianism on the Left. I will expand on this once I finish my research. Loremaster 23:33, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I do not appreciate your simply reverting all my edits. If and when you finish your research, let's revisit the matter. Better yet, start a separate article. -- 18:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First, I did not appreciate your simply eliminating all my edits to the Techno-Utopianism article. However, unlike you, I didn't take it personally since Wikipedia doesn't belong to me... or you for that matter. Second, once I finish my research, I will edit this article accordingly rather than starting a separate one since wikipedians are encouraged to expand articles rather than create new ones. Loremaster 21:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It took more time than I thought(!) but I have finished my research and included it in the article. --Loremaster 19:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of positivism and scientism

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Loremaster, i have all the sympathy for techno-utopianism & techno-progressivism. However, if NPOV is to be followed, than it must be said in the introduction that critics considers it as a form of scientism. I am therefore reverting your deletion for the second time. Regards Santa Sangre 16:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

1. If you paid more attention, you have noticed that I moved your comments to the Criticism section in the middle of the article, where they should be.

2. Techno-progressivism and techno-progressivism are contrasting stances. Please take the time to re-read and understand the content of the techno-progressivism article.

--Loremaster 18:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

A note about references

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am happy to see some much-needed activity at this article. I want to let you guys know I have the Gendron book (from which I added 'Principles' section) on my bookshelf, so if you need anything from it just let me know. On the same note, while I love the new history sections, references would be much appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

More to the story

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The discussion below doesn't take into account that technological utopianism (which I'd like to rename this article) has a long history in the United States. It's a whole lot more than just the Karl Marx and the dot-com '90s. I've included reference to an important book by Howard P. Segal (important in the sense of being relevant to this topic and replete with historical discussion). This isn't my book, and I don't know the guy, so it's not a plug. Just a helpful source. Jlg4104 (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess I need to put my money where my mouth is soon. I think this is an important article and want to get more involved. J L G 4 1 0 4 18:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You should both feel free to expand the article with information from reliable sources. However, always try to write it from a neutral point of view... --Loremaster (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Right-- I've been reading up on the guidelines. We're the same jlg4104 above-- I just snazzed up my sig. Yes, you caught me talking to myself on Wikipedia. I guess I'm hooked. Cheers. J L G 4 1 0 4 03:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Should there be some mention of these Internet memes? It seems impossible to avoid them in the context of technological utopianism these days. Ilmateur (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Since we don't want to be accused of original research, we need reliable sources that explicity describe The Zeitgeist Movement, The Venus Project or any other Internet meme as examples of technological utopianism or techno-utopianism. --Loremaster (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Dispute over new lead

Latest comment: 13 years ago20 comments9 people in discussion

User:JackBlack, I am happy to see you taking an interest in improving the Technological utopianism in general and its lead section in particular. However, you admit to being new and I find attempt to improve the lead by summarizing the article didn't respect Wikipedia quality and style guidelines. So please discuss substantial changes here before making them. --Loremaster (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Diff.

OK. What aspects do you have an issue with. Surely this part is OK: "Prominent thinkers such as Marx and Engels believed science and technology would eventually create utopia."? I suggest we add parts one at a time until we iron out the points we disagree on.-JackBlack-86.184.246.73 (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you had an issue with the references to Post scarcity, which although I did provide references to the Post-Scarcity aspect, this aspect was not mentioned in the main text (I have subsequently corrected this and added a new section to the main text regarding Early 21st Century Techno Utopia.-JackBlack---86.184.246.73 (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess what I am politely suggesting is that 1) you aren't really doing a good job at summarizing the article, and 2) you are giving undue weight to fringe views and people, which is why you need to understand the importance of identifying reliable sources before adding information only you deem relevant. Hint: An article in H+ Magazine and/or a Jason Stoddard article is not a reliable source. ;)

That being said, for a while now, I've been wanting to rewrite the first part of the history section using a more reliable source so we need to hold off on summarizing the article for the lead until we find that source. --Loremaster (talk) 04:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Diff

Firstly the summary of the article, the lead section, doesn't require new sources because the sources are already WITHIN the article, it is a summary. Regarding the new section for the Post-Scarcity aspect (early 21st Century): The Huffington Post and Humanity+ Magazine constitutes a reliable source. The input of James Hughes, David Pearce and Nick Bostrom into Humanity+ gave credence to the reliability of Humanity+ as a source. Likewise the Huffington Post is a respected source publishing authoritative views; some of the people published on the Huffington Post include Greg Gutfeld, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Heather Robinson, Michael Moore, Jimmy Demers (Contributors). Admittedly the issue of Post scarcity is not mainstream news published by every periodical but those TWO sources are both respected media outlets. Your accusation that I am giving undue weight to fringe views is unfounded, and given your previous insults and unjustified obstinacy, which other editors criticized regarding the Singularitarianism article, I am inclined to think you are wrong again on this one, but forgive me if I am overreacting to your well-intentioned reverts. I shall ask for a Request For Comment and hopefully someone impartial can resolve this dispute.

There are two separate issues here: 1. The summary of the lead section. 2. The new section: Early 21st Century. I could perhaps understand objections the the new section (the inclusion of the Post-Scarcity aspect) but there is no justification for objecting to a mere summary of the lead because there are already references within the article. The lead section is merely a summary of the article. JackBlack-----86.184.159.95 (talk) 09:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Loremaster If you do object to any edits please don't wildly revert the whole article because some good may be lost along with the alleged bad. For example I have just added Abolitionism (bioethics) and Post scarcity to the 'see also' section. Both categories are perfectly valid for this techno-utopianism article. I suggest manually deleting the content you think is questionable would be a more beneficial approach because some content needs to be included and it is unquestionably OK such as Abolitionism (bioethics) and Post scarcity in the 'see also' section. user:JackBlack-86.184.159.95 (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no choice but to be more blunt: 1) You are not a good summarizer so I suggest you let others do it, 2) Humanity + magazine (unlike the Huffington Post) is not a reliable source (regardless of the fact that a few notable yet fringe scholars have published articles in it) and the author of the Humanity+ article you specifically want to reference is not notable either, and 3) most of the content of the Technological utopianism in the 19th century section of the article is not neutral since it comes a book written by James Hughes, a self-described “left-wing techno-utopian”. Therefore, it needs to be written or, at the very least, we need to reference a more objective source that argues the same thing Hughes does but from a more critical point of view. That being said, in a previous debate, you reaveled your pro-singulatarian/transhumanist/techno-utopian bias which doesn't and shouldn't disqualify you from editing Wikipedia articles. However, you are clearly trying to edit some Wikipedia articles to promote your point of view. This is not acceptable and needs to stop right now. Ultimately, in light of our dispute and in order to avoid an edit war, please discuss substantial changes here and wait for a consensus before making them. --Loremaster (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Your accusation that I am trying to promote my viewpoint is utterly unfounded. It is poor argument for you to refer to a previous debate I had with you, which allegedly highlighted my bias, yet you fail to provide a quotation supporting your allegation of my biased editing. If you insist upon talking about previous debates I shall highlight your bias towards me. You insulted me and here is a quote: "Forgive me for being insulting but if you truly believe the quote by Eliezer is a realistic scenario I regret to inform you that you are foolish and need to get a life." You accuse me of trying to promote my view, which is not the case, yet you have displayed clear antipathy regarding the views of Eliezer Yudkowsky: you described his quote from year 2001 as being "foolish" and an 'unrealistic scenario'. If you insist up making accusations of biased editing then you only need look as far as yourself.

Now to address your reverts: Why do you think Abolitionism (bioethics) and Post scarcity are NOT relevant to this Techno-utopianism article in the see also section?

If you object to my summary on the Lead Section then please by all means edit what I've written, or write it yourself. Deleting all of my contribution to the Lead is senseless. The Lead Section has been flagged for being too short since June 2010 therefore it seems others are not going to do it. My allegedly poorly written (but accurate) Lead Section summarizing the article is a step in the right direction; perhaps others can refine what I have contributed.

The new section regarding early 21st century Techno Utopianism and my references to Post-scarcity does have room for debate. I have already made clear why I think my edits on this matter are valid and verifiable and reliable. Obviously people who write articles regarding techno-utopianism are likely to be biased regarding techno-utopia, such as the example you gave regarding James Hughes (Humanity+}, a self-described “left-wing techno-utopian”, but my contribution is neutral. Consider Ray Kurzweil who could be said to be biased regarding the Singularity does the bias of Kurzweil mean we should refrain from including his views regarding the Singularity, or does the bias of Eliezer Yudkowsky mean we should refrain from including his views regarding AI or Singularitarianism? This dispute regarding the new section of 21st century Techno Utopianism and Post scarcity is more complex and definitely needs an independent viewpoint to be resolved so please focus on my points regarding your removal of two articles from the see also section (Abolitionism (bioethics) and Post scarcity). Please also focus on the stumbling-block we have reached regarding extending the Lead. user:JackBlack86.185.69.168 (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

In our our first debate on my talk page, you ended one of your statements with the enthusiastic slogan “The intelligence explosion is coming” which clearly revealed your pro-Singularitarian bias.
I have no problem with Abolitionism (bioethics) and Post scarcity being included in a See also section so I will restore this edit.
I have expressed clear antipathy regarding the views of Eliezer Yudkowsky but I didn't let this antipathy influence my edits. On the contrary, since it seems like Yudkowsky regretted expressing these views, I decided that they should not be included in the article in order to be fair to him.
There is nothing senseless about reverting your edits of the Lead in light of the fact that a major section of article needs to be re-written which would therefore affect the lead.
I never argued we should exclude the views of Hughes of Kurzweil in the article. However, these views need to be properly contextualized and not given undue weight otherwise the article becomes nothing more than a vehicle for the promotion of their techno-utopian views.

--Loremaster (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree the article should definitely not be a vehicle for an editor's pro or anti techno-utopian views. I am ambivalent about the Singularity. I wouldn't say I am a definite Singularitarian although I do have leanings in that direction which has led me to do some editing. Editors will naturally have an interest in article one way or another, which is why they feel the need to edit the article. Despite my interest in Singularity related issues I would never let such a bias influence my editing. I actually think the concept of the Singularity is humorous. I find human intelligence a source of amusement therefore when I singed-off one post by saying take care the intelligence explosion is coming I was merely being humorous; it is a quirky thing to say, "The Intelligence explosion is coming." Anyway, it seems we are making some progress now. You will note in one of my edits, which you removed, I actually included a quote by Ray Kurzweil where he stated he does not hold a utopia view of the future, so you can see I am not being biased. Most Singularitarians would probably want to conceal Ray Kurzweil's anti-utopian views, whereas I simply want to present a balanced Article based on verifiability. You have previously stated you think the world is heading for ecological disaster therefore I am inclined to think you hold anti-utopian views and I feel your objections regarding the Yudkowsky quote were NOT to save Yudkowsky any embarrassment (as you imply) but merely because you objected to the idea of a utopia occurring... This is what you wrote: "And, between you and me, anyone who takes the content of that quote seriously enough to wait around for this fantasy to happen when the world is heading toward an ecological catastrophe, needs to see a shrink." So it seems you have a definite anti-techno-utopian viewpoint? Your outlook seems distinctly dystopian.

Here's the Kurzweil piece you removed:

Renowned futurist Ray Kurzweil has stated his vision is not utopian one: "My vision is not a utopian one. For example, I‘m working with the U.S. Army on developing a rapid response system for biological viruses, and that‘s actually the approach that I advocate — that we need to put resources and attention to the downsides." http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/ai/ray-kurzweil-h-interview Ray Kurzweil: The h+ Interview by Surfdaddy Orca & R.U. Sirus. Published 30/12/2009

Perhaps the above Kurzweil quote would fit well in the criticism section, which highlights how techno-utopians often fail to address the negative impacts of technology of the environment.

user:JackBlack86.184.246.85 (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I'm neither a utopian nor a dystopian. I am an optimist who is critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms. Although I am convinced that the world is in fact heading toward an ecological catastrophe, I think it can be averted and my optimism makes me want to fight to do just that. I therefore think people should, among other things, stop indulging in the techno-utopian fantasies that Yudkowsky expressed in the past so that we can all focus our energies on saving the planet.
Despite the fact that I do think the utopia described by Yudkowsky is ridiculous, the only reason why I objected to the Yudkowsky quote being included in the article is because 1) the document was marked as “wrong, obsolete, deprecated by an improved version, or just plain old”, and 2) to save Yudkowsky embarrassment. In other words, I can overcome my bias to be fair when editing an article.
It doesn't make any sense for someone who objects to ridiculous singularitarian scenarios to want to prevent quotes about them from being added to an article about singularitarianism simply out of antipathy.
That being said, after thinking about it, I cannot deny that I am pleased if the Yudkowsky quote is included in the article since it exposes how ridiculous the views of some Singularitarians are or were. ;)
The Kurzweil piece shows how bad an editor you are because suddenly quoting Kurzweil to make the point that he isn't the techno-utopian people think he is doesn't make any sense in the lead section of an article on techno-utopianism when you haven't even previously established that he is in fact perceived by his supporters and his critics as a prominent techno-utopian! Furthermore, the lead section should be a general summary of the article's subject. It's a not a place to present the views of a person who isn't discussed in the body of the article especially when he or she is arguing that he doesn't hold the views the article is about.
Adding the Kurzweil piece in the Criticism section only makes sense if we first explain that critics think Kurzweil is a prominent techno-utopian.
Lastly, even if someone claims that he or she is concerned about the downsides of technological change, it doesn't change the fact this person can still be a techno-utopian if he seriously believe that a technological singularity can and will create a utopia like the one described by Yudkowsky. Therefore, Kurzweil is in fact a techn-utopian regardless of his new rhetoric.

--Loremaster (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Loremaster, you say you are "...critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms." Does this mean you are techno-phobic or a NeoLuddite? Perhaps due to you being critical of techno-utopianism in "all forms" this means you have a bias impacting negatively upon this Article? You want people to "...stop indulging in techno-utopian fantasies...[;] ...so that we can all focus on energies on saving the planet." How do you propose to save the planet, would that be via the utilization of technology or would that be via rejecting technology and reverting to a simpler bucolic way of life? Regarding the Yudkowsky quote, please note all other editors supported my view and none supported your view. I feel your claim that you were trying to protect Yudkowsky from embarrassment is dishonest because I feel your real motive was that you objected to the forecast of utopia, which conflicted with your anti-TechnoUtopian views. Regarding the Kurzweil quote let's not put that in the Lead and let's put it in the criticism section? You say Kuwzeil's supporters think he is a techno-utopian, but I wonder upon what verifiability you base such assertions? Remember Articles must adhere to Wikipedia:Verifiability. Remember also to maintain a neutral point of view and No original research. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for propaganda. Loremaster, you are fighting to put your views forward regarding criticism of techno-utopia in all forms, and you say: "Although I am convinced that the world is in fact heading toward an ecological catastrophe, I think it can be averted and my optimism makes me want to fight to do do just that." Wikipedia is not a place for fights. User:JackBlack

Putting aside the fact that I hope you are not seriously suggesting that being “pro-technology” automatically makes one techno-utopian, there is obviously a difference between being a critical of techno-utopianism and being technophobic or a neoluddite. That being said, since I am an advocate of appropriate technology, I believe saving the planet will require the use of green technology.
I am fully aware that some Wikipedians supported your wish to include the Yudkowsky quote in the Singularitarianism article but you seem to not have noted that I now agree with you that this qoute should be included. I was simply explaining the real reasons why I objected to it in the past. Regardless, your “victory” in that dispute has no bearing on the one we are having here since they are completely different.
Although I really don't care if you think I am being honest, you need to understand that it doesn't make any sense for me to prevent to a “forecast of utopia” (LOL) from being included in an encyclopedic article on Singularitarianism because of my “anti-techno-utopian” views. On the contrary, a person who lets his anti-techno-utopian bias influence his editing would relish the opportunity of exposing Singularitarianism as being ridiculously techno-utopian by including such a ridiculous forecast in the article!
Wikipedia guidelines regarding verifiability, neutrality, original research and soapboxes don't apply to a conversation I am having with you on a talk page, in which I am simply arguing that in order for it to make sense to have the Kurzweil piece added to this article YOU need to explain in the article that Kurzweil is believed by his supporters and/or critics to be a techno-utopian. In other words, if Kurzweil is not a techno-utopian, why should he be mentioned in an article about technological utopianism?!?
Although I am critical of techno-utopianism, I have NEVER let my point of view influence my editing of the Techno-utopianism article. On the contrary, if one looks at the history of this article which I am one most responsible for expanding and improving since 7 May 2004, it is clear that I've edited this article from a neutral or even sympathetic point of view. I haven't added any anti-techno-utopian propaganda is this article (most criticisms of techno-utopianism were added by some other user) so your accusations that I'm trying to use this article as my soapbox is ridiculous. So for the record: My objections to your edits are solely motivated by my desire to preserve the quality of this article in the face of your POOR editing skills and contributions.

--Loremaster (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The point about your past objection (now retracted and noted) to the Yudkowsky quote is that your previous unjustified objections could be spilling over into this article. You have been wrong once and you could easily be wrong again.

You admit to a soapbox stance regarding being: "...critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms." I feel this soapbox stance where you will "fight" to avert "ecological catastrophe" causes your editing of articles to be tendentious. This is not merely an issue with what you've written on talk pages. What's on the talk page highlights your motives. I feel your personal version of appropriate technology is possibly a mild form of Neo-luddism.

Your personal attacks are continuing although thankfully your insults are less direct. Please note that no personal attacks are allowed ANYWHERE on Wikipedia. Your attacks are not constructive; please note your most recent insult regarding my alleged "...POOR editing skills and contributions." This must stop!

Kurzweil should be mentioned in this article regarding Techno-utopianism because he is prominent in the field of technology and he states his views are NOT utopian. The Kurzweil quote should be included in the criticism section.

The bias of your anti-tech tendentious editing is evident in this edit.

Please respond to this Wikiquette alert. user:JackBlack86.135.39.135 (talk) 12:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

My past objections to the Yudkowsky quote might have been wrong but they were not unjustified since I clearly justified my objection by explaining to you that the quote came from a document that was marked as “wrong, obsolete, deprecated by an improved version, or just plain old”. Although other Wikipedians argued that the quote could be added anyway, no one disagreed with me that it would be appropriate to add a disclaimer which notes that Yudkowsky may no longer hold these views. That being said, if you or anyone else is able to prove to me that I am wrong in the dispute we are having on the Techno-utopianism article (specifically the Kurzweil issue), I have enough good faith to admit my mistake and accept defeat. However, until then, you should discuss substantial changes to the article on this talk page before making them especially in light of the dispute to avoid an edit war.
Confessing to having a point of view for the sake of full disclosure in a conversation on a talk page is not the same as tendentiously editing an article to reflect that point of view. NONE of my edits to the Singularitarianism and Technological utopianism articles can be interpreted by any rational observer as an attempt to use these article as an “anti-techno-utopian” soapbox.
You have no basis to argue that my personal version of appropriate technology is possibly a mild form of neo-Luddism. Not only do you not know me enough to be able to dertermine that with absolute certainty but I have said nothing that could be interpreted as neo-luddism. For the record, I am critical of techno-utopianism AND neo-Luddism in all its form. I would describe my personal version of appropriate technology as a strong form of technorealism.
I find it disgusting how you insist on using my honesty against me and distorting my views to personally attack me as being a technophobe or neo-luddite while at the same time complaining about personal attacks.
You seem to be confusing “technology” with “techno-utopia” or being “pro-technology” with being “techno-utopian”. Regardless of whether or not Kurzweil is a prominent technologist, if no one argues that Kurzweil is a techno-utopian and Kurzweil himself argues that he is not a techno-utopian then it doesn't make any sense for him to be mentioned in an article on techno-utopianism.
Your example of my “anti-tech editing” is ridiculous since 1) I was simply reverting your edits because I don't think we should expand the lead until the entire article is improved, and 2) I was the editor who wrote that Marx and Engels were techno-utopians in the body of the article on 4 February 2006.
I've responded to your ridiculous Wikiquette alert and it's the last time that I do.

--Loremaster (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

My changes to this article began before the dispute. Nobody had been editing this article for around one month so when I began I was not stepping on anyone's toes. Since I began editing this article and we began this dispute you have been making substantial changes without discussing the changes beforehand, so why should I be required seek your approval regarding my changes? Who made you leader? You seem you be saying it is OK for you to make substantial changes to this article but I am not allowed to? This is not your personal article on Technoutopianism. There is no Wikipedia policy as far as I am aware stating approval must be sought before making edits.

OK, you were the editor who wrote the Engels Marx segment; then what is the problem with putting that in the Lead? Are you saying the Engels Marx segment shouldn't be in the main section and you've mistakenly included it? It is not constructive to continually refer to me in disparaging terms, you are personally attacking me, which stared when you called me foolish and told me to get a life. You seem to have got the facts all twisted. I am not the one personally attacking you. I said you could possibly be a neo-Luddite, which I believe is a valid issue to raise considering you stated you are critical of techno-utopianism in all forms, and that you are fighting to avert technology-induced ecological catastrophe.

PLEASE no personal attacks. Don't call me foolish, don't tell me I need to get a life, don't tell me my editing is "POOR", and don't disparage my editing or Talk contributions by labeling them or me "ridiculous". It is very possible you are partaking in tendentious editing.

The relevance of the Kurzweil quote is that he is a prominent futurist, well-noted in the field of technology, and he is saying he does NOT have a utopian view regarding technology. This is obviously relevant in the criticism section because Kurzweil highlights how people should be aware of dangers of technology too, in addition to the benefits.

86.173.28.88 (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)JackBlack

According to Wikipedia guidelines, you can and should boldly edit articles without having to discuss it first. However, if your edits are reverted and people question their soundness, your must seek consensus for your edits by discussing them on the talk page of the article. Until an agreement is reached, you should not restore your edits because it might trigger an edit war.
As I explained before, the body of the article (especially the section dealing with techno-utopianism in the 19th century) needs to be radically improved with more reliable sources. Therefore, we should hold off expanding the lead.
I once called you foolish and told you to get a life in a old conversation on my personal talk page for which I have sincerely apologized for so you should stop bringing that up. However, I honestly don't mean to insult you but I really do find your writing style and summarizing abilities to be poor. Despite your good faith, you are simultaneously expanding the article (which is a positive) while damaging the quality of the article (which is a negative). I therefore am not going to apologize for being honest about the reason why I object to some or all of your contributions. That being said, you cannot with a straight face ask me to stop engaging in personal attacks when you simulteanously accuse me of being dishonest or having some neo-luddite agenda based on nothing more than bad intuition and misinterpretation.
For the record, I never said that technology is responsible for the ecological catastrophe. I blame the capitalist mode of production for this problem. Furthermore, I clearly explained that I am a technorealist in favor of appropriate technology and green technology. So accusing me of being dishonest or “possibly” being a neo-luddite is not only a personal attack but is not assuming good faith, which are all violations of Wikipedia's talk page guidelines.
I've explained why mentioning Kurzweil in this article without proper contextualization doesn't make any sense. You continue to fail to understand my argument and refute it.

--Loremaster (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Loremaster; perhaps the main article is poorly written (prior to my alleged poor intervention) but if the article stands then it should have an adequate Lead. Obviating the Lead merely because the Article is poor is not a valid reason for a deficient Lead. As anyone can see you have not addressed points raised. I will readily admit there are aspects of my contributions that could be refined but my contributions are not poor. I apologize unreservedly if you perceived my suggestion that you hold some mild neo-Luddite views to be a personal attack, such was not the case, I was merely trying to get to the root of your hostility. I do try to assume good faith regarding your contributions but we got off to a bad start when you told me I was foolish and that I should get a life. That bad start was compounded by you repeatedly telling me my complaints were ridiculous and that my editing is "POOR". You previously reverted ALL my edits on this article, which happened not only with substantial changes but also with my minor changes. I can see you have made a lot of edits to this Article in the past, before I began editing it, but sometimes a fresh approach can be helpful. I am acting good faith when I make my edits and comments, and I hope you will be able to see that.

You wrote: "So for the record: My objections to your edits are solely motivated by my desire to preserve the quality of this article in the face of your POOR editing skills and contributions."

You seem to contradict yourself somewhat by saying you want to preserve the quality of the article but on the other hand you say the article is lacking in quality thus it doesn't deserve a full Lead.

I feel this whole saga has gone on too long. This discussion is massive and for whatever reason we seem to be going around in circles. You feel I am not listening to you and likewise I feel you are not listening to me. I think I shall draw my contributions to a close for this Article, perhaps for one month or two, and hopefully by then someone independent will have brought some resolution to the issue. I will now present my final suggestions regarding the Article.

Even if the Article is poorly written and poorly sourced it should nevertheless have an adequate length Lead.
The following section regarding Technological utopianism in the early 21st century should be included:
The Financial crisis of 2007–2010 was cited as the first steps towards Post scarcity in a Humanity+ article titled "First Steps Towards Post scarcity: or Why the Current Financial Crisis is the End of the World As We Know It (And Why You Should Feel Fine)"[8] Steven G. Brant published via The Huffington Post an article in November 2008 titled "Celebrating Capitalism's Death? Not so Fast...", in which he states: "Well, there is a huge blue ocean available to all the world's businesses now. It is the post-scarcity, post-zero sum Capitalism world that is waiting out there.... just waiting for us to reach out for it."[9]
If you object to the above Post-Scarcity aspect at least you should include Eric Schmidt's following comments regarding utopia in relation to technology.
Google CEO, Eric Schmidt, outlined his vision of utopia on 28th September 2010: "It's a future where you don't forget anything...In this new future you're never lost...We will know your position down to the foot and down to the inch over time...Your car will drive itself, it's a bug that cars were invented before computers...you're never lonely...you're never bored...you're never out of ideas."[10] Schmidt went on to say that augmenting humanity would benefit many people: "This is a future for the average person, not just the elite. Because of technology, because of internet access, this is a market for one billion now, two billion soon, and in our lifetime five-to-six billion altogether."
Regarding Google, Eric Schmidt, and utopia, you may also want to make reference to the comments from this journalist, Tom Krazit, writing on cnet News: "Schmidt would do well to occasionally acknowledge those fears the way he did in January at Davos (see link above), even if he and his engineers think them unfounded. It might humanize Google in a way that preaching techno-utopia simply won't." These comments from Tom Krazit could be included in the criticism section, which would balance the Utopian comments by Schmidt.
The Kurzweil quote should be included in the criticism section because he holds a non-utopian view of technology. Kurzweil is techno-utopian critical because he says we should focus on the downsides of technology also. Techno-utopians fail to consider the downsides therefore the Kurzweil quote is relevant in the criticism section. Kurzweil states: "My vision is not a utopian one. For example, I‘m working with the U.S. Army on developing a rapid response system for biological viruses, and that‘s actually the approach that I advocate — that we need to put resources and attention to the downsides."[14]
I'm glad you liked my reference to University of Alberta researcher Imre Szeman but I see you have given greater stylistic prominence to his techno-utopian critical quote. Do you think such prominence regarding the statement of Imre Szeman is warranted considering he is relatively unknown? Previously you stated the Post-Scarcity quotes should not be included because they were made by relatively unknown people.
Regarding the sections. I think combining the late 20th century and early 21st century makes the section too long. Late 20th century and early 21st century should be separate sections, but it is OK to combine Technological utopianism from the 19th to mid-20th centuries.

I think that's everything. Forgive me if I failed to address any points you raised and once again I am sorry if you thought I was personally attacking you when I suggested you may have mild neo-Luddite views regarding technology. You have stated you will "fight" to avert an ecological catastrophe, which you feel is coming, and you have also stated you are 'critical of techno-utopianism in all forms'. Rightly or wrongly I was therefore exploring the possibility of you holding neo-Luddite view and such views were disruptively impacting upon this article. I thank you for your honesty in revealing your views about the environment and again I apologize if you thought I was making personal attack on you. 86.184.155.164 (talk) 10:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)JB

Just because you disagree with my argument it doesn't mean that I am evading a point. If you insist on making this accusation again, I will cease engaging you in discussion.
Although I think the article needs to be improved and expanded, I am not arguing that it is entirely bad. On the contrary, I think it is relatively good. However, even a bad article can be made worse so there is nothing contradictory about me arguing that I want to preserve it's quality in the face of what were, in my opinion, well-intentioned but poor contributions.
You are correct that an article should have an adequate length Lead even if the article needs to be radically improved. However, the problem is that the new lead you wrote was, in my opinion, terrible and damaged the quality of the article.
The Humanity + article and its author are not notable. Furthermore, we should not give its main argument undue weight unless several notable authors express it.
The Huffington Post article doesn't qualify as a source that promotes technological utopianism simply because the author mentions the word “post-scarcity”, especially considering that post-scarcity doesn't necessarily imply technological utopianism. For example, many people argue that we already live in a post-scarcity world but that the problem is an economic system which contributes to concentration of wealth and a widening gap between the rich and the poor rather than a progressive redistribution of wealth and resources.
I have no problem with comments from Eric Schmidt and Tom Krazit being included in the History and Criticism sections of the article. However, even if they are, they shouldn't be mentioned in the lead section because they are not important enough to be mentioned in a lead that needs to a general overview of the article and the topic of technological utopianism.
I will continue to oppose the mention of Kurzweil in this article until his relevance is made clear such as explaining that he is seen by his critics as a prominent techno-utopian. However, even if this is done, Kurzweil shouldn't be mentioned in the lead section because he is not important enough to be mentioned in a lead that needs to be a general overview of the article and the topic of technological utopianism.
I don't think that the Imre Szeman quote should be given prominence but I think his study should be used a source for a general statement that many critics argue that technological utopianism is counter-factual and faith-driven.
I have no problem with the idea of making two seperate subsections for the late 20th century and the early 21st century history of technological utopianism.
Your apologies are accepted. However, I hope you understand that being critical of technological utopianism doesn't mean that someone is anti-technology. On the contrary, someone can love technology but still be realitic enough to understand that technology will never lead to utopia in light of all its downsides...

--Loremaster (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

There are varying degrees of being anti-technology. Someone who is 100% anti could be deemed an outright Luddite, whereas someone who is 100% pro could be deemed a techno-utopian; while someone in the middle could hold Appropriate technology or techno-realism views. Being critical of techno-utopianism *could* mean that the critical person does have *some* anti-technology facets to their belief system. Having stated this I feel such speculations and discussions are not profitable. I do not want to appear as though I am casting aspersions upon your character.

I agree that not everything have suggested may be appropriate for the Lead. This discussion became a bigger issue than merely the Lead, for example including Post scarcity and Abolitionism (bioethics) in the "see also" section. I do feel the issue of Post scarcity is indubitably relevant to the techno-utopianism Article; the Post scarcity references and quotes should be included within the Article but I will leave this for others to decide.

I feel I have contributed enough time and energy to this Article therefore I will step back for a couple or months and let others bring a fresh viewpoint.

86.173.25.213 (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)JackBlack

Good call. I'll work on improving the article based on some of your suggestions while you are away. --Loremaster (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Rfc: Content of the Lead. New section Early 21st century section. Additions to 'See Also'

Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

I am having a dispute with one editor Loremaster regarding the Lead Section, and regarding a new section about early 21st Century techno-utopianism. Read the discussion for more information: Talk:Technological_utopianism#Dispute_over_new_leadUser:JackBlack81.151.128.195 (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The 'See Also' aspect of the dispute has been resolved. User:JackBalck86.186.61.211 (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

JackBlack, please discuss substantial changes on this talk page before making them in the article until this dispute is resolved. --Loremaster (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Loremaster, please discuss substantial reverts regarding this Article until the dispute is resolved. 86.173.28.88 (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)JackBlack

It doesn't work that way. When there is a dispute or controversy, the burden is on you to discuss substantial change you want to make on this talk page before making them.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

That being said, I have repeatedly explained my reverts on this talk page. --Loremaster (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You may have explained you reverts but you have NOT explained you inclusions of new text for the article. OK, so you have inserted a controversial banner after the fact. Perhaps what we need to do is revert all edits to the point when this dispute began? 86.173.28.88 (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)JackBlack

Putting aside the fact that changes I have made are not substantial, you seem to not have noticed that I included an improved version of the text you wanted so I would think you would be happy. That being said, I agree with you that we should revert to the version of this article before you started editing it if this is what you are suggesting. --Loremaster (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe your edits were not substantial, you will have to forgive me if I am not favorably disposed to your contributions. Your insults did not create an atmosphere appropriate for constructive discourse. I am perhaps wrongly or rightly inclined to view your contributions negatively. I have attempted to get some independent resolution but you have stated you will ignore my Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Loremaster. I suggest it would be more profitable if you actually addressed the points I raise instead of stating my complaints are ridiculous and incoherent. Looie496 was unhappy with this edit of yours but you failed to explain yourself. 86.173.28.88 (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)JackBlack

As anyone can see in the section above, I have fully addressed all the points you have raised (as well as the one raised by Looie496) but I no longer will since I can longer assume your good faith. I have no choice but to demand that you be blocked from editing the Technological utopianism article unless you agree that we should revert to the version of this article before you started editing it until this dispute is resolved. --Loremaster (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

As anyone can see you have not addressed points raised. You have not addressed the issue raised by Looie496. You have addressed some points but often you evade addressing points raised. I will happily accept the article being reverted but we really need someone independent to arbitrate. I did actually try to revert the article yesterday, to the point just before this dispute began, but for some reason it could not be done. You are welcome to try and revert it, I will not object. We have consensus on this. 86.184.155.164 (talk) 09:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)JB

I haven't evaded addressing any points. I simply addressed them in other sections you seem to ignore or blindly reject my valid explanations so I don't see the point of repeating myself ad nauseum. That being said, I am waiting to hear from a Wikipedia administrator I contacted to arbitrate this dispute. In the meantime, I will revert to the version of this article before you started editing it until this dispute is resolved. --Loremaster (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Dispute over new contributions by Jack Black

Latest comment: 13 years ago59 comments13 people in discussion

I have temporarily removed the following contribution by anonymous User:86.162.82.67 because it gives undue weight to an opinion (or rather wishful thinking) that is only tangentially related to the subject of this article:

In early December 2010 WikiLeaks became an international news sensation regarding the Cablegate leaking of US Government Cables. Mark Pesce, writing for ABC News (Australia), describes how the prospect of utopianism in this new "hyperconnected" age of "hyperdemocracy" is now simply a recognition of facts:

We face a choice. This is the fork, in both the old and new senses of the word. The culture we grew up with has suddenly shown its age, its incapacity, its inflexibility. That's scary, because there is nothing yet to replace it. That job is left to us. We can see what has broken, and how it should be fixed. We can build new systems of human relations which depend not on secrecy but on connectivity. We can share knowledge to develop the blueprint for our hyperconnected, hyper-empowered future. A week ago such an act would have been bootless utopianism. Now it's just facing facts.^[1]

--Loremaster (talk) 13:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Mark Pesce quotation: "hyperconnected" utopianism not undue weight.

This quotation:

We face a choice. This is the fork, in both the old and new senses of the word. The culture we grew up with has suddenly shown its age, its incapacity, its inflexibility. That's scary, because there is nothing yet to replace it. That job is left to us. We can see what has broken, and how it should be fixed. We can build new systems of human relations which depend not on secrecy but on connectivity. We can share knowledge to develop the blueprint for our hyperconnected, hyper-empowered future. A week ago such an act would have been bootless utopianism. Now it's just facing facts.^[2]

...regarding the WikiLeaks Cablegate affair; this is not "undue weight". Mark Pesce is a respected author of numerous books, and his article written for 'ABC News Australia' is not fringe news. The WikiLeaks affair is changing the world regarding techno-empowerment, cited earlier in the techno-utopianism article (see dot-com 90s culture). We can see how the Pesce quote is relevant and the weight is not undue. Here is the excerpt from dot-com 90s culture:

This form of techno-utopianism reflected a belief that technological change revolutionizes human affairs, and that digital technology in particular - of which the Internet was but a modest harbinger - would increase personal freedom by freeing the individual from the rigid embrace of bureaucratic big government. "Self-empowered knowledge workers"...

Operation Payback and the Anonymous (group) could also perhaps be cited to corroborate the earlier mentioned "Self-empowered knowledge workers".

Currently the Techno-Utopianism article, without criticizing anyone in particular, is biased towards Neo-Luddism. This bias must change to reflect a Neutral point of view.

86.183.14.172 (talk) 10:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)JackBlack

Regardless of whether or not Mark Pesce is a respected author of numerous books and that his article was written for ABC News Australia, it doesn't change theis article is general overview of technological utopianism and we can give undue weight to Pesces' opinion. That being said, I am not opposed to including a brief mention that there people like Pesce who believe that Wikileaks is an important milestone towards creating a techno-utopian transparent society.
"Self-empowered knowledge workers" simply refers to knowledge workers who became independent contractors not hackers or internet pirates.
The oly bias this article can be accused of having a technorealist one.
In accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and in order to avoid an edit war, please do not restore your contribution until our dispute is resolved

---Loremaster (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiLeaks is not a hacker or pirate organisation: WikiLeaks' staffers are journalists, they are independent knowledge workers. Furthermore: "Knowledge workers may be found across a variety of information technology roles" and hacking and P2P (or so-called internet piracy) is part of the 'variety' of information technology roles.

It is futile to discuss anything with you. You renege on agreements. You are unreasonable. You have failed to address the earlier Wikiquette alert I raised. You are not open to discussion. Your editing is disruptive.

86.184.158.136 (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)JackBlack

I never said that Wikileaks is a hacker or pirate organization nor do I think it is one. However, Operation Payback and the Anonymous grou arguably are.
I don't dispute that (ethical) hacking and P2P are part of the variety of information technology roles. However, I don't think Viajero, the author of the expression "self-empowered knowledge workers", had Operation Payback and Anonymous in mind when he wrote it.
In accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and in order to avoid an edit war, disputed new content must be removed from an article until the dispute is resolved so I removed your contribution.
I don't see why you think it is futile to discuss anything with me or that I am unreasonanle or that I am not open to discussion or that my editing is disruptive when I have taken the time to calmly explain all my edits and respond to all your assertionss with sensible arguments.
As for your earlier Wikiquette alert that you raised, does this mean that you are JackBlack? If so, I haven't engaged in personal attacks in this conversation so I don't understand why are bringing up this old issue.
Lastly, I haven't regened on any agreements. I simply haven't had the time to add new content based on some of your suggestions. However, I will soon.

--Loremaster (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You can speculate upon what Viajero did or didn't have in mind when he wrote "self-empowered knowledge workers" but speculations are futile and liable to bias, therefore we should stick to facts. Furthermore in the paragraph preceding "self-empowered knowledge workers" the Californian Ideology is mentioned regarding techno-utopianism therefore if Operation Payback and the Anonymous group don't fit into the definition of "self-empowered knowledge workers" (but they do actually fit) then Operation Payback and the Anonymous (group) are definitely an extension of the anti-authoritarian Californian Ideology. The Pesce quote, regarding utopianism becoming fact, highlights how WikiLeaks has spawned this hyperconnected, hyper-empowered utopian future.

The Guardian Technology Editor, Charles Arthur, writes regarding Anonymous how "Swarming attacks on sites" will be commonplace in a year or two:

"...in 1999 or so came the first generation of higher education students who'd already used the net at home. They were also the Napster generation. Since then, every successive year has pushed access to the net earlier and earlier, meaning that what was novel to the previous one becomes commonplace for successors. Peer-to-peer? Done it. Bittorrent? Everyone does. Swarming attacks on sites? It's new this year, but it will be standard procedure in a year or two."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/dec/13/hacking-wikileaks

I am not personally attacking you. I merely criticise your editing. It is convenient how you've had time to make the anti-utopia edits, but you've had no time to make any of the earlier agreed pro-utopia edits. Articles should be balanced but your editing is not. I refer to previous incidents regarding your problematic editing because your current disruptive editing is part of an ongoing pattern.

You may say the Pesce quote regarding WikiLeaks is "only tangentially related to the subject" but the evidence does not corroborate your bogus assertion of undue weight.

86.135.34.228 (talk) 08:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)JackBlack

Rather that speculating on what Viajero did or didn't have in mind when he wrote "self-empowered knowledge workers", I will simply ask him.
You seem to be one speculating based on your interpretation of the Pesce quote. “Sticking to the facts” means finding sources that explicitly say what you think they say. Therefore, unless you have a reliable source that argues Operation Payback and Anonymous are extensions of the California Ideology, you are engaging in futile speculation liable to bias.
I disagree with your interpretation of the Pesce quote, which is nothing more than his opinion. For example, there are people who argue that the likely outcome of the Wikileaks phenomenon is that while closed societies may be forced to be more open, open societies will also become more closed. Therefore, this is a good example of how techno-utopianism can blind someone to other ways of interpreting what Wikileaks means...
I don't see how the opinion that swarming attack on sites will be commonplace in a year of two proves your speculation that Operation Payback and Anonymous are knowledge workers or extensions of the California Ideology. Again, you're speculating.
It doesn't make much time to revert someone else's bad edits but it obviously takes more time to read sources and figure out the best way to use them.
I don't make “anti-utopia” or “pro-utopia” edits. My edits are only motivated by my desire to protect this article from the bad edits of others.
Although the article needs to be improved and expanded, no one can seriously accuse it of being unbalanced. You, on the other hand, seem bent on editing this article to turn into a vehicle for techno-utopian propaganda.
My editing is not disruptive. It is perfectly normal to remove disputed new content until the dispute is resolved on the talk page. The only thing that is disruptive is restoring disputed new content when the dispute has not been resolved thereby triggering an edit war. So can you please stop doing this and respect Wikipedia guidelines?
Do you even understand what is meant by “undue weight”? “Neutrality requires that an article fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.” Therefore, I am simply arguing that one man's opinion (which is nothing more than wishful thinking) should not take up an entire paragraph. However, I am not opposed to including a brief mention that there are people like Pesce who believe that Wikileaks is an important milestone towards creating a techno-utopian transparent society as long as it is countered by people who disagree. So what's your problem?
You don't need to internally link some words over and over again.

--Loremaster (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I strongly recommend you read the following article to get a different perspective: The Singularity Movement: If Only Glenn Beck Were a Cyborg.. --Loremaster (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion that I am trying to turn this article "...into a vehicle for techno-utopian propaganda" is ludicrous. It was I who included to the Imre Szeman quote critical of techno-utopia: a quote from a relatively minor source which you insist upon giving undue prominence.

Regarding Operation Payback and Anonymous I am not speculating; I am "discussing". Operation Payback and Anonymous were not part of the edit I made, they are incidental issues which I'm merely discussing. I initially said they *could* perhaps be included in addition to the Pesce quote. The main issue here is the Pesce quote. The Pesce quote was the edit I made and it is not "only tangentially related to the subject". Pesce is a renowned techno-commentator therefore regarding his WikiLeaks 'utopia fact' article, written for a prominent news organization, Pesce's opinion has weight (not undue weight); his opinions are unquestionably worthy of inclusion. If you can find a commentator who states Wikileaks is a sign of dystopia then by all means please include that opposing critical view. Your edits are anti-utopian, look at the facts, look at the edits you made and look at what was agreed previously in discussion and you will see how you only made the anti-utopian (techno-critical) edits whereas the pro-utopian edits where omitted, which indicates your bias. You are creating an unbalanced article based on your save the Earth eco-propaganda.

The Pesce quote is a significant viewpoint published by a reliable source. There is nothing more to say, but I'm sure you will have more points to raise.

86.184.157.224 (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)JB

I take back my accusation that you are trying to turn this article into a vehicle for techno-utopian propaganda. However, I think your techno-utopian bias influences how you interpret sources and my edits. Your use of the expression "anti-utopian edits" proves it.
Whether or not Imre Szeman is a minor source is open to debate. However, his opinion is not in the minority therefore there is nothing wrong in giving it due weight especially in a section of the article that focuses on criticisms of technological utopianism. That being said, I would be more than happy to replace it with what we would judge to be a major source that essential says the same thing.
I am fully aware that Operation Payback and Anonymous were not part of the edit you made to the article and I never said that they were. However, you chose to discuss them on this talk page to make a point that supports your edit. Furthermore, when you argue that Operation Payback and Anonymous could be included under the expression "self-empowered knowledge workers", that is speculation.
Beyond the problem that you are misinterpreting what Pesce is arguing, you are giving it undue weight in a section that should focus on general statements about the evolution of technological utopianism as an ideology and/or movement in the 21st century. That's the only reason why I have reverted your edit.
As I've explained to you in a previous conversation, the notion that my edits are motivated by an “anti-techno-utopian” bias is utterly refuted by the fact that I am the person most responsible for expanding this article with “pro-techno-utopian” content over the years.

In light of what I just said, what would be better is a general statement like this one:

However, technological utopianism persists in the 21st century as a result of new technological developments and their impact on society. For example, several technical journalists and social commentators, such as Mark Pesce, have interpreted the WikiLeaks phenomenon and the United States diplomatic cables leak as a precursor to, or an incentive for, the creation of a techno-utopian transparent society.

Now, isn't that a reasonable compromise? --Loremaster (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Loremaster, I suppose that's a reasonable compromise, and regarding the Anonymous issue I think the latest information could possibly corroborate what I earlier stated. Today (17th Dec 2010) The Guardian reports on Anonymous regarding a Press Release by Anonymous, and here are a few choice quotes:

"FREE THINKING CITIZENS OF THE WORLD, In the middle of this mass uprising amongst humanity over the censorship of Wikileaks, Anonymous has made its voice heard among the cries for justice and freedom. Many people think they understand Anonymous, but as an amorphous, opt-in entity, Anonymous is, if we might understate ourselves, fractitious at best and anything but unanimous."

"We call also for a public and open debate over the issues of copyrights and patents. For too long, we have watched private companies abuse these legal channels as a form of litigational capital. Software copyright firms, for example, exist for the primary purpose of buying copyright claims to harass others. Pharmaceutical firms spend a significant quantity of their monopoly profits not on research and development but on defending their patents."

"We thus cannot in any way support any business models which rely on the slavery of information for its own sustenance. If the freedom of information requires that the laws be changed, then we work towards those ends in a peaceful and reasoned manner. We will not stand idly as the law is used to protect the strong and to persecute the weak."

"If the law does not adapt to the new realities brought by new technologies and the Internet, then the march of technology will rob them of the ability to uphold the law. We thus call for governments everywhere to promote freedom of information whatever, wherever, and however it may arise. Governments which refuse to change with the changing world risk being left behind by it."

This last quote by Anonymous seems particularly relevant to techno-freedom, info-transparency, tech-utopia etc. Anonymous also address P2P ("Software copyright firms"), which is an issue that could be tied into Post-Scarcity if some more refs and editing were applied.

It is also worthwhile to note how Anonymous managed to force Paypal to release WikiLeaks funds.

Have you clarified "self-empowered knowledge workers" yet? I feel this article could profit via having more editors but it seems it is only you and I, and I will be withdrawing. I think the Pesce quote should stand alone, irrespective of Anonymous corroboration, but your compromise is better than nothing. It's your call. I'll leave it to you.

Dear Loremaster...

I've said before that it is convenient how you've had time to make the anti-utopia edits, but you've had no time to make any of the earlier agreed pro-utopia edits, but you are now saying you will get around to including Schmidt's pro utopia comments. Articles should be balanced but your editing is not, although maybe that will change.
You have not addressed your failure to include the edits previously agreed on in the dispute over the lead. You only included edits critical of techno-utopianism but you failed to include the agreed edits supportive of techno-utopianism.
For the record this article is NOT purely a critique of techno-utopianism although sometimes it appears you have such a misapprehension.
The techno-utopianism article lacks many modern accounts of techno-utopianism due to your formerly declared bias, which I will refer to at the end of this response.
Your insistence upon blocking everything I contribute to this article is unfair; it is unfair and unbalanced that you consider yourself to be the supervising, overriding Editor in chief.
You state: "The quote by Imre Szeman is indeed an opinion but the difference is that it is relevant in a section that focuses on criticisms of techno-utopianism and widely is shared by many critics of technoutopianism." BUT Loremaster you must supply references to corroborate this idea of yours that the criticism Szeman raises is "widely shared by many critics of technoutopianism." The Imre Szeman critcism is blatantly NOT widely shared, but the opposing Pesce view is more widely shared. The Pesce quote is far more valid than the Szeman quote.
The compromise with the Pesce quote was a step in the right direction but there is room for improvement thus I continue the discussion.
You say I should take back the "outrageous accusations" I made against you on the talk pages of people who have contributed to the Technological utopianism and/or Singularitarianism articles "otherwise I will report you to Wikipedia administrators."
What is stated on the talk pages of other people is FACT not "outrageous accusations". All that has happened is that an apposite collection of your statements (which you've made during public discussions regarding these issues) have been posted to talk pages of other people, it seems the purpose is merely to bring some balanced editing to the aforementioned articles. You should not be the primary editor of this article. Other editors are needed. You seem to resent other editors intruding; this is not conducive for a balanced article. Quite predictably you have resorted to threats of reporting me to the administrators, which seems to tally with your 'criticism of techno-utopianism in all forms'. It saddens me that people will attempt to suppress free speech.
Please spare me your save the earth propaganda. People have manipulated the truth to serve global warming agendas but this biased presentation of facts should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. It is ironic for you to accuse me of 'undue weight' or of not supplying adequately verified sources.
Loremaster you have said you are:
"...critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms."

And you want people to:

"...stop indulging in techno-utopian fantasies... ...so that we can all focus on energies on saving the planet."

Loremaster, you've stated this techo-utopianism article is a 'fight' for you:

"Although I am convinced that the world is in fact heading toward an ecological catastrophe, I think it can be averted and my optimism makes me want to fight to do do just that."

86.184.246.211 (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)JB

The so-called “anti-techno-utopian” content you found was very easy to include and use since it is a general criticism that is widely shared by critics of techno-utopianism. The so-called “pro-techno-utopian” content is a bit more tricky since I am in the process of thinking how best to rewrite the article while preserving a long-term, historical view while trying to avoid inflating the importance of recent quotes by techno-utopians like those of Schmidt. So my editing is balanced. It is your perception of my editing that isn't because you fail to look at the entire history of my editing of this article since 23 January 2005.
See my answer above.
Technological utopianism should be an encyclopedic article that presents a comprehensive yet concise overview of the principles, history and criticisms of technological utopianism. The content should ideally come from reliable third-party sources that have critically studied the subject, such as Howard P. Segal and Bernard Gendron. The word "critical" connotes the importance or centrality of an effort on the part of the studier to clarify definitions, examines assumptions, discerns hidden values, evaluates evidence, and assesses conclusions. "Critical" in this context does not mean "disapproval" or "negative." Therefore, quotes by techno-utopians themselves are useful but are ideally contextualized by journalists and scholars who have studied these quotes.
The article lacks many modern accounts of techno-utopianism only because neither I or anyone else bothered to update this article until you came along. However, I have opposed your well-intentioned but misguided attempts to update the article not because of an “anti-techno-utopian” bias but because your edits were bad and contributed to the problem of recentism.
My insistence in blocking all your contributions has never been motived by my “anti-techno-utopian” bias or a sense of “article ownership” but my refusal to let you erode the quality of these articles with your amateurish and awkwardly bad editing which often results in articles being damaged by poor writing and recentism.
I agree with you that we must supply references to corroborate the perfectly reasonable idea that the criticism Szeman expressed (as opposed to the quote of this criticism itself) is widely shared by many critics of technoutopianism (regardless of whether or not people have heard of Szeman). I am working on getting them but keep in mind I am busy doing other things as well. That being said, even if it were true that Pesce's opinion is shared by many people it doesn't mean that we need to quote him. As I said before, the compromise is more than enough. So let it go.
I find it truly disgusting that you would take comments I made out of the context of a conversation in which I was being honest about my point of view in the interest of full disclosure while explaining that I can overcome my bias in order to write on this subject from a neutral point of view. The entire history of my contributions to the Singularitarianism article as well as the Technological utopianism article demonstrates without a doubt that I have always tried to be as fair and accurate as possible. For the record, I do NOT consider these articles as part of my “fight to save the planet”. I became interested in improving and expanding theses articles because I was initially a sympathizer. Although I am now a technorealist critic, I still watch over them to make sure they remain good articles out of Wikipedian duty. That being said, if you persist in canvassing Wikipedia to create a lynch mob against me using such an intellectually dishonest distortion of my views and edits, I will report you to Wikipedia administrators in order to get you banned.
That being said, I welcome other editors contributing to this article. If you had simply contacted people and requested their help in improving and expanding the article without personally attacking me I would have been more than happy. I would have even applauded you for taking the time to do something I should have done myself. But now you have permanently damaged our working relationship since I can no longer assume your good faith and intellectual honesty.
I am not interested in converting you to my environmental views. However, it is perfectly legitimate to report the opinion of notable critics of technological utopianism (and singularitarianism) who are environmentalists in both articles regardless of whether or not you think they are biased. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. Furthermore, almost all the critics of technological utopianism (and singularitarianism) I have chosen are reliable sources according to Wikipedia guidelines. By the way, are the criticism of techno-utopianism that you found (in the Wired.co.uk article for example) not reliable or nothing more than propaganda? In other words, why are your critics good but mine are not?
If a rational observer reads the context of my comments from which you have taken them out of, her or she will see that I never said that the Technological utopianism article is part of any fight I am involved in. This is a gross distortion on your part which is now at the heart of the problem you and I are having.

--Loremaster (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I've emailed Mark Pesce (see FURTHERMORE section) so hopefully his clarification (assuming he replies) can help shed some light regarding who is distorting this Techno-Utopianism issue. Yes, I agree, let's see what rational observers think. I advocate no lynch mobs contrary to your paranoid suggestion. I firmly believe rationality will win the day. For a while I've sadly not been able to assume good faith on your part. Your insults have ranged from stating I need to get a life, to implications that anyone who believes in Singularitarianism is crazy. More often than not your comments will incessantly inform me how my editing is allegedly bad, poor, or "amateurish and awkwardly bad" yet I've edited other articles (one article I basically rewrote) and I've never had any complaints until I encountered you.

86.185.71.172 (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)JB

Although I'm sure Pesce's clarification will be interesting, it will not change the valid reasons why I am opposed to adding this quote of his you keep obsessing over.
Dude, you contacted 40 people who have edited the Technological utopianism and Singularitarianism articles accusing me of being a “bad editor” engaging in “biased editing” in accordance with an “ideology” verging towards “Neo-Luddism” in order to spread “Save The Earth propaganda”. Not only does the context of my comments prove that these accusations are outlandishly false and prejudice any rational observer against me before he or she is even able to hear my side of the story but what you did is a clear violation of Wikipedia guidelines encouraging us to be polite, assume good faith, and avoid personal attacks. In other words, that was low even for you. Luckily, at least so far, most people are wise enough to not participate in your lynch mob. One doesn't even take you seriously because you don't have a registered account, which you can recall I encouraged you to do...
That being said, I did initially insult you but I apologized for doing that and agreed to avoid personal attacks. However, the only reason why I have incessantly informed you that you were a bad editor was because you incessantly kept accusing me of letting my “anti-techno-utopian bias” influence my reverts of your edits so it forced me to bluntly tell you the real reason why I opposed your edits.
By the way, in case you didn't know, I have been responsible for improving many Wikipedia articles enough to meet Good Article criteria and, in a few cases, Featured Article criteria as well. So the notion that I'm a “disruptive editor” would not be taken seriously many people, especially those who have praised my work in the past.
Lastly, I never implied that “anyone who believes in Singularitarianism is crazy”. What I said was that anyone who takes the content of that extremely techno-utopian Yudkowsky quote seriously enough to wait around for this fantasy to happen when the world is heading toward an ecological catastrophe needs to see a shrink. One can be a Singularitarian without believing the Singularity will bring about the techno-utopian fantasy Yudkowsky described. So this is another example of you distorting what I say in order to get your way. Pathetic.

--Loremaster (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

FURTHERMORE regarding the suitability of the Mark Pesce quote

The Guardian have also quoted Mark Pesce's article regarding utopianism becoming fact. The Guardian describes Pesce as the "virtual reality pioneer". How many alternate refs can you find for the Imre Szeman quote? At least I note you have recently lessened the emphasis on the Szeman quote. Here's the excerpt The Guardian uses regarding Pesce stating utopianism is now becoming fact:

"Script kiddies everywhere now have a role model. Like it or not, they will create these systems, they will share what they've learned, they will build the apparatus that makes the state as we have known it increasingly ineffectual and irrelevant. Nothing can be done about that. This has already happened.

"We face a choice. This is the fork, in both the old and new senses of the word. The culture we grew up with has suddenly shown its age, its incapacity, its inflexibility. That's scary, because there is nothing yet to replace it. That job is left to us. We can see what has broken, and how it should be fixed. We can build new systems of human relations which depend not on secrecy but on connectivity. We can share knowledge to develop the blueprint for our hyperconnected, hyper-empowered future. A week ago such an act would have been bootless utopianism. Now it's just facing facts."

And here is the Pesce source from ABC (Australia) news.

And here is a source (The Ecomomist) criticizing the "utopia" of Wikileaks: "Wikileaks should choose its targets better and think of the ramifications of its actions on foreign policy as a whole. The sort of completely transparent utopia they imagine is about as likely as the Communist utopia dreamed of by Lenin."

Consider the Pesce Article about how the coming utopianism is now deemed fact.
Consider the CNN interview with Anonymous where the Anon interviewee states the goal is utopia.
Consider how The Guardian has quoted the Pesce utopainism article.
Consider how The Economist criticizes the "utopia" of WikiLeaks.
Considering these four references from reliable sources regarding 'utopia' and WikiLeaks (and Anonymous); you surely must agree this Technological Utopianism article should make better reference to Pesce's Utopianism quote and the WikiLeaks/Anonymous events?

86.184.246.211 (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)JB

Whether or not we can find people online quoting Imre Szeman's opinion or praising him as an authority on the subject of technological utopianism is irrelevant to the debate about whether or not he is a reliable source whose opinion is relevant in a section focusing on criticism of technological utopianism. That being said, I've only removed the Imre Szeman quote because I've found a better way to intergrate its content. It will replaced by more quotes from other sources.
Pesce isn't arguing that “the coming utopianism is now deemed fact”. He is arguing that facts surrounding the consequences of the WikiLeaks phenomenon means that it is not longer utopian to suggest creating a transparent society. There is a subtle difference there that you seem to be missing. This is what I mean when I say that you seem to be overinterpreting the Pesce quote.
We do not need to add this quote since the compromise I suggested adequately summerizes its content and we should avoid giving his opinion undue weight in section that focuses on general statements about the history of technological utopianism in the 21st century.
Nothing you have shown me so far has convinced me that we need to expand on the mention of Wikileaks in this article. Furthermore, we have to be careful to avoid recentism: writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention.

--Loremaster (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

What Pesce is saying is this: "A week ago such an act would have been bootless utopianism." But now it appears 'utopianism' has put its BOOTS on; utopianism is no longer BOOTLESS.

Sharing "...knowledge to develop the blueprint for our hyperconnected, hyper-empowered future," (formerly bootless utopianism) is now simply about facing facts.

Hey Loremaster, I'll tell you what I'll do, I will email Mark Pesce and ask him precisely what he means regarding bootless utopianism now becoming fact. Surely you will not disagree with Mark Pesce himself? Let's see what Mark himself has to say regarding the meaning of his recent article published on the ABC news (AU) website and quoted in The Guardian.

Pesce also states on his blog less ambiguously:

"Everything is different now. Everything feels more authentic. We can choose to embrace this authenticity, and use it to construct a new system of relations, one which does not rely on secrets and lies. A week ago that would have sounded utopian, now it’s just facing facts. I’m hopeful. For the first time in my life I see the possibility for change on a scale beyond the personal. Assange has brought out the radical hiding inside me, the one always afraid to show his face. I think I’m not alone."

OK, I've now emailed Mark but his clarification is not essential. You can clearly see, via looking at his blog (see above quotation), that I have NOT misinterpreted his sentiments. Mark states: "A week ago that would have sounded utopian, now it’s just facing facts." Hopefully Mark will reply soon to my email (or maybe he will reply directly on this discussion page) and then we can be absolutely sure what his meaning was regarding utopianism.

I feel Mark is saying the prospect of utopianism is now an everyday fact therefore we no longer need to call it utopianism because traditionally the idea of utopia was something hypothetical, something unreal, whereas current technological-utopian events are VERY REAL, therefore due to their reality they cease to be mere hypothetical utopian dreaming. Utopianism has put its boots on and become real. The prospect of utopianism is now a fact.

Recentism also has positive aspects according to Wikipedia: "Recentism is a symptom of Wikipedia's dynamic and immediate editorial process, and has positive aspects as well — up-to-date information on breaking news events, vetted and counter-vetted by enthusiastic volunteer editors, is something that no other encyclopedia can offer." --86.185.71.172 (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)JB

You are right that recentism can be a good thing but your edits so far and the ones you have suggested making would in my opinion slant the article towards recent events in bad way. Regardless of whether or not you agree, this is a valid concern and, more importantly, the one of the many real reasons why I have opposed some of your edits.

Although I prefer waiting for Mark's clarification before passing final judgement, nothing you have said or he will say changes the fact that (because of reasons I've already explained several times on this talk page) we do not need to add this quote you keep obsessing over since the compromise is more than good enough so let's move on. --Loremaster (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You have stated I misinterpreted Mark Pesce's quote. Your allegation that I had misinterpreted the quote was one of your main objections to usage of the quote. The Pesce quote about utopianism published on two major news websites, regarding WikiLeaks, seems more than worthy of inclusion; but now you say regardless of the meaning of the quote you object to its inclusion. Why do you insist upon including the far less prominent anti-techno-utopian quote by Imre Szeman? Furthermore you mention Szeman in the Lead section and this all seems very unbalanced with undue weight. The problem with having only two editors is that it's merely your opinion verses mine. Independent voices are needed for a balanced view. We can only truly move on when more editors have become involved. --86.173.29.110 (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)JackBlack

My allegation that you misinterpreted the quote was one of my main objections of the usage of the quote. However, the other reasons were more important. The main two was 1) it is a minority point of view not widely shared, and 2) we would be giving undue weight to an opinion that is not relevant in a section that should focus on general statements about the history of technological utopianism as an ideology/movement in the 21st century. So even if your interpretation was valid (which we know now it isn't), it wouldn't override the other reasons.
The reason why I insist in paraphrasing Szeman until we find more critics is because 1) he is a reliable source, 2) his opinion is extremely relevant in a section that focuses on criticisms of techno-utopianism, and 3) it is fair to assume that is a majority point of view among critics of technological utopianism.
There is nothing unbalanced about summarizing criticisms of the subject in the lead section of the article. However, I may replace Szeman's opinion in the lead section with a summary of the content of a Criticisms section that has been improved and expanded.
Although I welcome more editors, what you said is not necessarily true. For example, two or even a hundred right-wing editors could make an article on some politic issue biased towards the right-wing point of view. As long as the sole editor strives to write an article from a neutral point of view, an article can be balanced. The many articles that I've improved until they met Good Article criteria and, in some cases, Featured Article criteria prove it.

--Loremaster (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Mark Pesce responds to Jack Black's emails. Clarification of utopianism issue.

Here is the initial response from Mark but addition clarification is needed therefore I've replied to this email from Mark:

From: markpesce*********

Subject: Re: 'Bootless Utopianism now fact' (hyper-connected hyper-empowered future)? Clarification.

Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010

To: jack.black**********

My use of 'bootless' was directly from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar: "Doth not Brutus bootless kneel?"

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=bootless

86.173.29.110 (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)JackBlack

Well, Loremaster, it looks like I may be forced to eat humble pie. I am waiting for one final response from Mark but his latest response seems reasonably clear:

From: markpesce*********

Subject: Re: 'Bootless Utopianism now fact' (hyper-connected hyper-empowered future)? Clarification.

Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010

To: jack.black**********

That's not really what I meant at all.

I do not see Wikileaks as anything like technological utopianism. It's natural selection taken to the next level.

On Dec 21, 2010, Jack Black wrote:

Dear Mark,

Thanks for your response.

So would this summary of your view be correct?...

I feel Mark is saying the prospect of utopianism is now an everyday fact therefore we no longer need to call it utopianism because traditionally the idea of utopia was something hypothetical or spineless, something unreal, whereas current technological-utopian events (WikiLeaks) are VERY REAL and powerful, therefore due to their reality they cease to be mere hypothetical utopian dreaming. Utopianism has put its boots on and become real. The prospect of utopianism is now a solid fact.

If that interpretation of your view is incorrect please could your clarify your view regarding technological-utopianism in relation to WikiLeaks?

Regards

Jack Black

86.173.29.110 (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)JackBlack

OK, here follows Mark's final clarification on the matter and I shall now leave this article to other editors:

From: markpesce*********

Subject: Re: 'Bootless Utopianism now fact' (hyper-connected hyper-empowered future)? Clarification.

Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010

To: jack.black**********

I was neither criticizing nor dismissing utopianism. Utopias are inspirations, not actualities. Rather, I was turning the argument around on anyone - and already there have been many - who would dismiss my own thesis as utopian. I shot down that argument before it could get started, grounding my work firmly in the real. The point was to make it impossible to ignore, as plain and real as the nose on your face.

On Dec 21, 2010, Jack Black wrote:

Thanks for that clarification, but finally I would like to know what exactly was the relevance (the meaning) of the word "utopianism", which you used in the following quote. Would you say you were criticizing or dismissing utopianism? Why did you use the word utopianism? What were you hoping to convey regarding utopianism?

"We face a choice. This is the fork, in both the old and new senses of the word. The culture we grew up with has suddenly shown its age, its incapacity, its inflexibility. That's scary, because there is nothing yet to replace it. That job is left to us. We can see what has broken, and how it should be fixed. We can build new systems of human relations which depend not on secrecy but on connectivity. We can share knowledge to develop the blueprint for our hyperconnected, hyper-empowered future. A week ago such an act would have been bootless utopianism. Now it's just facing facts."

86.173.29.110 (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)JackBlack

I won't gloat but this should serve as a lesson for you on how your techno-utopian bias does affect your interpretation of the sources you read and the edits or reverts I've made. Moving on. --Loremaster (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No need to gloat, but if you do want to gloat perhaps you should put all your text in BOLD? Merely because I was wrong on one issue does not mean all issues I raised were wrong, such logic as yours is flawed. Although Pesce neither advocates nor condemns tech-utopianism it is culturally noteworthy that he did refer to utopianism regarding the WikiLeaks events, furthermore in a CNN interview a spokesperson for Anonymous did undoubtedly say utopia was the goal. The media references to utopia/utopianism regarding WikiLeaks/Cablegate/Anonymous are reasonably significant and at the least those cultural mentions deserve a mention in this Techno-Utopianism article. Here is the latest article mentioning 'utopia' in connection with WikiLeaks/Cablegate/Anonymous ("Just watch us: The utopian dream of total openness"):

"The most concrete legacy of Bentham's utopianism was his idea, then considered dangerously intrusive, of having Parliament conduct its debates in public and on the record. Up to then, Parliament had taken place in secret, and governments had argued that public access to debates would damage national security. The Benthamites wanted it open, and their agenda was pushed by free-information radicals such as London mayor Brass Crosby, who helped publishers use illegal mass document leaks – in the form of then-illegal transcripts later known as Hansard – to force parliamentary debates into the public. (See sidebar.) That movement's language seems almost identical to words uttered by defenders of WikiLeaks and its Cablegate leaks this week."

Loremaster, it was difficult to bypass your stubbornness prior to my error therefore it would be pointless to try now; but please consider some reference to the cultural mentions of utopia/utopianism in connection with WikiLeaks (etc) because the WikiLeaks transparency and Anonymous issues are being connected to Utopianism in the media. --109.152.130.228 (talk) 13:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)JB

I didn't put my text in bold to gloat to make sure you didn't miss it and to emphasize the sense of closure and my desire to move on.
I honestly think you have been wrong in all the disputes we are having over the Technological utopianism article. So it's not because you were embarrassingly wrong about the Pesce quote that I say this.
We have reached a reasonable compromise when it comes to Pesce and Wikileaks so I don't see why we keep discussing a dead issue.
Regarding Anonymous, even though I am inclined to think of them as a good example of bad recentism because they will probably be considered a footnote by scholars writing a long history of technoutopianism, I am not opposed to a brief mention of this group in the article. However, like Pesce, I would be opposed to the inclusion of quotes.
Being “stubborn” is defined as “unreasonably or perversely unyielding”. I have never been stubborn. I've always rationally defended my position until I am convinced that I should change it. My arguments are always logical and usually supported by Wikipedia guidelines. I often suggest reasonable compromises (such as brief mentions of XYZ instead of given undue weight to big guotes from XYZ). However, you seem to ignore these suggested compromises and pretend I'm being stubborn simply because you are not getting 100% of what you want. Therefore, you are the one who needs to bypass your own stubborness.

--Loremaster (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ted Nelson Utopian Vision leading from Mark Pesce Utopian quote

What do you think of this from the Oxford Internet Institute:

"Ted Nelson occupies a unique place in the computer field, a 'systems humanist' designer whose vision of a Utopian world of intellect focused around the computer screen foresaw (from the 1960s) the kind of cyberworld that has been opened by the Internet."

I feel some reference to Ted Nelson should be inluced in the artcile. The article is currently woefully outdated. Modern examples of techno-utopianism are not included. The Wired article regarding Mark Pesce which also mentions Ted Nelson could be a good starting point for including modern techno-utopian views in this article.

Wired states:

"Mark Pesce, like hypermedia's guru Ted Nelson, is one of those fascinating visionaries who contributes as much to the culture of imagination as to technology itself. With The Playful World, Pesce shows how today's digitized, networked smart toys serve as the precursor to tomorrow's mutable fast-forward reality. According to Pesce, we should pay attention to nominal playthings like Sony's PlayStation2, Lego's programmable Mindstorm robots, and cuddly interactive plush dolls like Furby, especially if we want to control this future."

81.151.135.248 (talk) 10:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)JB

This is an interesting quote by Tim Berners-Lee with Mark Fischetti, from "Weaving the Web" (Harper/San Francisco, 1999):

"Ted Nelson, a professional visionary, wrote in 1965 of "Literary Machines," computers that would enable people to write and publish in a new, nonlinear format, which he called hypertext. Hypertext was "nonsequential" text in which a reader was not constrained to read in any particular order, but could follow links and delve into the original document from a short quotation. Ted described a futuristic project, Xanadu, in which all the world's information could be published in hypertext. For example, if you were reading this book in hypertext, you would be able to follow a link from my reference to Xanadu to further details of that project. In Ted's vision, every quotation would have been a link back to this source, allowing original authors to be compensated by a very small amount each time the quotation was read. He had the dream of a utopian society in which all information could be shared among people who communicated as equals. He struggled for years to find funding for his project, but success eluded him."

81.151.135.248 (talk) 10:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)JB

I have nothing against mentioning Ted Nelson's vision in the Technological utopianism article. However, we have to have some context. I have already given an example of how this should be done with my compromise regarding Mark Pesce.
You need to remember that an article about technological utopianism is about presenting an overview, history, a list of principles, and criticisms of technological utopianism as an ideology and/or movement. Ideally we want expand this article with information from scholars who have studied the subject objectively (like Bernard Gendron, the professor of philosophy who defined the four principles of modern technological utopians) rather than simply quote articles and books written by techno-utopians themselves or the journalists who fawn over them.

--Loremaster (talk) 11:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I am merely raising issues for discussion. I would gladly contextualize Ted Nelson's vision within the article but undoubtedly you would object to whatever I added to the article therefore I merely raised the issue because anything more than merely raising the issue of Ted Nelson would bring sternest condemnation from you. I feel it is pertinent to raise the issue of Ted Nelson because considering Tim Berners-Lee has mentioned Ted's utopianism I thought it odd that this Article we are discussing failed to mention Ted Nelson's vision of utopia. Hopefully if other editors ever pass by they can then take up the issue of Ted Nelson's absence from this article. --86.184.246.211 (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)JB

I appreciate some of your suggestions but I object to your actual edits because of how bad your writing is or because of the bad location and undue weight you give to the content you want to add. That being said, you need to understand that an encyclopedic article is a comprehensive yet concise overview of a given subject. It can't be a list of quotes from every person and group who has recently show up in the news with something to say that may or may not be relevant to the subject. In other words, we have to be careful to avoid recentism: writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention. --Loremaster (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Comments by Tim Berners-Lee about the utopian vision of Ted do not constitute any negative aspects of recentism and neither is the Wikipedia/Anonymous issue a negative aspect of recentism. Do you really think given the level of global articles about Wikipedia, technology, democracy, freedom, and utopia that the Wikipedia issue will be deemed flawed recentism? The Tim Berners-Lee quote is from 1999 regarding statements Ted made in 1965, which doesn't seem recent to me. You often state my writing is bad; but I have refrained from highlighting how your thinking is bad. You seem to have a cognitive/perceptual disability therefore you should refrain from editing Wikipedia because your flawed editing is disruptive. Please stop your nonsense. --86.185.71.172 (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)JB

My point remains that you want to give importance to quotes from people who in the long history of technological utopianism may not be that important. That being said, in light of some of our earlier conversations about Kurzweil where you clearly showed an inability to understand common-sense arguments, I find it laughable that you of all people would accuse someone else of having a cognitive/perceptual disability. By the way, in case you didn't know, I have been responsible for improving many Wikipedia articles enough to meet Good Article criteria and, in a few cases, Featured Article criteria as well. So the notion that I'm “disabled” or “disruptive” would not be taken seriously many people, especially those who have praised my work in the past. --Loremaster (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If you're such a model editor how do you explain your tendency to insult me? Is insulting other editors a characteristic of good editing? At the outset of our dialogue you insulted me. I note recently that you called me a "jerk". I suppose you will soon start telling me to get a life again. Oooo... you're such a good editor Loremaster! Bravo! Although I am relatively new to Wikipedia I have previously edited articles without compliant prior to encountering you. I basically rewrote one article and nobody objected. --86.173.29.110 (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)JB

I did initially insult you but I apologized for doing that and agreed to avoid personal attacks. However, the only reason why I have incessantly informed you that you were a bad editor was because you incessantly kept accusing me of letting my “anti-techno-utopian bias” influence my reverts of your edits so it forced me to bluntly tell you the real reason why I opposed your edits. Should I lie?

As for the article you rewrote, in light of the quality of your edits to the Technological utopianism article so far, I seriously doubt that you were able to do a good job. If I cared enough and had the time to spare, I would actually track down the article you rewrote in order to ensure it wasn't damaged since articles get rewritten badly all the time without people objecting usually because these articles are of little interest to most people.

--Loremaster (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"Digital Utopian" Jaron Lanier

Perhaps the techno-utopianism Article should mention the so-called "digital utopian" Jaron Lanier? While looking into Ted Nelson I discovered this Article in the Guardian:

"He popularised the notion of virtual reality, and his ideas about open culture and open access paved the way for the triumph of first-generation web success stories such as Google and Amazon and second-generation online applications including Twitter and Facebook."

...but now Jaron Lanier is skeptical about how the web is developing. See Wall Street Journal:

"We're well over a decade into this utopia of demonetized sharing and almost everyone who does the kind of work that has been collectivized online is getting poorer. There are only a tiny handful of writers or musicians who actually make a living in the new utopia, for instance. Almost everyone else is becoming more like a peasant every day."

81.151.135.248 (talk) 10:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)JB

Yes. Jaron Lanier is definitely someone worth mentioning in the article with the proper contextualization. What he says reminds me of what R. U. Sirius is quoted as saying in the Cyberdelic article. --Loremaster (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous (group)

The following Press statement (excerpt), by the anonymous group, mentioned in the Guardian, should be included in conjunction with the Mark Pesce reference because it shows how Pesce's opinions are related to factual demonstrations of "knowledge workers" being self empowered. It is a clear indication of how info-tech is creating greater freedoms (see second para' in this section: Technological utopianism from late 20th and early 21st centuries): "This form of techno-utopianism reflected a belief that technological change revolutionizes human affairs, and that digital technology in particular - of which the Internet was but a modest harbinger - would increase personal freedom by freeing the individual from the rigid embrace of bureaucratic big government."

ANONYMOUS PRESS RELEASE EXCERPT:

"If the law does not adapt to the new realities brought by new technologies and the Internet, then the march of technology will rob them of the ability to uphold the law. We thus call for governments everywhere to promote freedom of information whatever, wherever, and however it may arise. Governments which refuse to change with the changing world risk being left behind by it."

It is also worthwhile to note the Anonymous Ddos attacks made PayPal release WikiLeaks funds.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt 1997: " The Internet is the first thing that humanity has built that humanity doesn't understand--the largest anarchy that we have ever had."

This is also interesting:"Wikileaks Symposium On Internet Freedom" reported on by Huffington post.

86.173.31.137 (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)JB

Putting aside the fact that you are engaging in synthesis, which is not tolerated by Wikipedia guidelines, I am opposed to the mention of the Anonymous group in this article until we have a second- or third-party source that argues that this group promotes a form of techno-utopianism. Just because the statement by the Anonymous group sounds techno-utopian doesn't it give us the right to categorize it as such.
We have already settled the Pesce issue with a compromise so you should stop wasting your time bringing it up again.
Techno-utopian statements by the Google CEO are note-worthy so we can discuss how best to include them.
A symposium on Wikileaks and internet freedom organized by the Personal Demoracy Forum can't be used a source for information nor is it necessarily techno-utopian.

--Loremaster (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Firstly a discussion is different to the actual article. Secondly and most importantly I am not engaging in synthesis. There are second and third party sources regarding Anonymous. Here is one I have quickly found off the cuff (WikiLeaks 'Anonymous' hackers: 'We will fight' CNN December 09, 2010 by Ashley Fantz and Atika Shubert):

CNN: What's the end goal for you? What do you want to see happen as a result of Operation Payback?

Anon: Personally? An (sic) utopian society. This is just a new way to fight ... We will fight until this primary goal has been achieved ... We started this operatiion (sic) to save and protect the freedom to share information freely without any censorship. We will fight until this primary goal has been achieved.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-09/us/hackers.wikileaks_1_julian-assange-arbor-networks-websites/3?_s=PM:US

So, in a CNN discussion with a member of Anonymous you can clearly see the goal is a utopian society.

86.184.246.211 (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)JB

Of course a discussion is different than actually making changes to the actual article. However, you are discussing your desire to make changes to the article that are based in synthesis until you actual do find and present sources that support your initial claim.
Yes. The CNN is a reliable source that could be interpreted as confirming that Anonymous is in fact a techno-utopian group. However, the question now is whether or not Anonymous is important enough to merit being mentioned in this article. Just because a group is techno-utopian doesn't automatically mean it deserves to be mentioned in an article about techno-utopianism. But, for the record, I'm not opposed to their mention as long as we don't give them undue weight. In other words, if a scholar was writing a comprehensive history of techno-utopianism would Anonymous take up an entire chapter or would it simply be a footnote?
Ultimately, we have to be careful to avoid recentism: writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention. --Loremaster (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

--Loremaster (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Recentism also has positive aspects according to Wikipedia: "Recentism is a symptom of Wikipedia's dynamic and immediate editorial process, and has positive aspects as well — up-to-date information on breaking news events, vetted and counter-vetted by enthusiastic volunteer editors, is something that no other encyclopedia can offer."

The question is this: are the edits I suggest slanted towards recent events? The answer is NO. Merely including recent events does not mean an article is slanted towards those events. I only seek to include my aforementioned edits as part of the overall picture, but your bias prohibits recent events whereas Wikipedia does NOT prohibit recent events.

86.185.71.172 (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)JB

You are right that recentism can be a good thing but your edits so far and the ones you have suggested making would in my opinion slant the article towards recent events in bad way. Regardless of whether or not you agree, this is a valid concern and, more importantly, the one of the many real reasons why I have opposed some of your edits. --Loremaster (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

More than two editors are needed for a balanced judgment. 86.173.29.110 (talk) 10:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)JackBlack

Although I welcome more editors, what you said is not necessarily true. For example, two or even a hundred right-wing editors could make an article on some political subject biased towards the right-wing point of view. As long as the sole editor strives to write an article from a neutral point of view, an article can be balanced. The many articles that I've improved until they met Good Article criteria and, in some cases, Featured Article criteria prove it. --Loremaster (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Texting Toward Utopia - Does the Internet spread democracy?

Apparently Ronald Regan said: "The Goliath of totalitarianism will be brought down by the David of the microchip"

The Regan quote can also be found in this Article critical of "cyber-utopians". 86.173.31.137 (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)JB

That's a great quote and a good article. We can discuss how best to use them. --Loremaster (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I've temporarily added the quote. Now I am just thinking of how to use the article. --Loremaster (talk) 03:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Mark Pesce quotes etc

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

My thanks to Loremaster for inviting me to contribute to this discussion.

First, I consider the Wikileaks phenomenon one of the most fascinating developments in recent years and I read the comments of Mark Pesce with great interest.

That being said, regarding the following quote, as it appears in this article as of 25 Dec:

For example, several technical journalists and social commentators, such as Mark Pesce, have interpreted the WikiLeaks phenomenon and the United States diplomatic cables leak in early december 2010 as a precursor to, or an incentive for, the creation of a techno-utopian transparent society.

For my tastes, this borders on speculation, if indeed not original research. Possibly there may be a place for it in the article on Wikileaks, but I haven't looked at that article lately.

If in due time Wikileaks is embraced to any meaningful degree as a form of technological utopianism it will be amply evident. We here at Wikipedia shouldn't be trying to anticipate these things; that's putting the cart before the horse.

On a general note, there is a tendency to lard articles on Wikipedia with references to current events (not to mention popular culture). This rarely improves them; in fact it tends to severely degrade them. Writing good encyclopedia articles isn't a matter of collecting factoids; it is an effort to weave a coherent narrative focusing on the most important aspects of the topic at hand. -- Viajero | Talk 18:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Viajero. I agree with everything you said. I'll wait for Jack Black's comments before deleting the Wikileaks quote from the article. --Loremaster (talk) 19:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Viajero, could you help us rewrite the article using scholarly sources? --Loremaster (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous Group and techno utopianism.

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've mentioned how the Anonymous Group should be part of this article in greater detail (see the archived talk pages for this article where I cited one Anonymous member who was quoted saying their goal was utopia. I also referenced other reliable sources, which either directly or indirectly referred to the utopian techno-liberation/utopian aspect of Anonymous).

User Loremaster disagreed with my assertion that Anonymous should be included with greater detail in this article. Loremaster stated we should avoid recentism. Subsequently to that discussion between myself and Loremaster Anonymous have perhaps shown they are not a here today and gone tomorrow phenomenon, which is perhaps proved by AnonLeaks regarding the HBGary hacking case and other events.

I was recently reminded of these issues regarding Anonymous and other relevant details regarding techno-utopia not being included in this article. I suspect Loremaster hasn't changed his mind on these issues. I feel these issues are worthy of debate (although myself and Loremaster cannot take the debate any further - we have debated these issues endlessly - I do feel other people should be aware of this debate) therefore please keep this talk subject live and not archived while the issue of utopia and Anonymous remains open. The article that reminded me of these issues is as follows and I have included a relevant quotation

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/notaro20110309

"Trans and post humanists who see a brighter future through the use of technology are witnessing the evolution of people/mind power to bring peace and justice to a world in which capitalism and greed have ruined. We are seeing the use of technology for the greater good as predicted by a number of rogue futurists right now before our eyes."

JACK BLACK--86.183.15.165 (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Although I am not opposed to including a brief mention of the Anonymous group in this article if there are second- and/or third-party reliable sources that describe this group has promoting technological utopianism, I think Jack Black should concentrate his time and energy on improving and expanding the Anonymous (group) article since that is where the content he wants to add would be most useful. --Loremaster (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Evidence so far

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

It may be worth mentioning the evidence so far for technological utopianism. Technology has so far brought us:

life expectancy has gone from 30 yrs to 80 yrs
houses instead of caves & mud huts
plentiful food all year every year
resources to care for those unable to care for themselves (welfare etc)
medical facilities & abilities
enormous growth in wealth
education opportunities via videos, schools, books, other written materials,
a massive body of knowledge residing in books, internet, patents, etc
the ability to carry out international trade
the ability to have more than one set of clothes
household appliances that do time consuming the drudgery of laundry
and on and on and on

It would be fair to say we live in a technological utopia already Tabby (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really when you can a make a longer list of evidence for how technology is destroying the world... --Loremaster (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no evidence to say the world has been destroyed. The world may be destroyed by technology but on the whole the world is currently being saved by technology. The hypothetical prospect of the world being destroyed does not justify the omission of the above points mentioned by Tabby --86.181.74.235 (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)JACK BLACK

^ Australia ABC - "The state, the press and a hyperdemocracy" by Mark Pesce, published and retrieved 13th December 2010: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/42148.html
^ Australia ABC - "The state, the press and a hyperdemocracy" by Mark Pesce, published and retrieved 13th December 2010: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/42148.html
^ Australia ABC - "The state, the press and a hyperdemocracy" by Mark Pesce, published and retrieved 13th December 2010: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/42148.html

[1] Australia ABC - "The state, the press and a hyperdemocracy" by Mark Pesce, published and retrieved 13th December 2010: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/42148.html

[2] Australia ABC - "The state, the press and a hyperdemocracy" by Mark Pesce, published and retrieved 13th December 2010: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/42148.html

[3] Australia ABC - "The state, the press and a hyperdemocracy" by Mark Pesce, published and retrieved 13th December 2010: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/42148.html

[1]

[2]

[3]