Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2016 April 16

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 16

People accusing Wikipedia of being like a cult

Why do some people accuse Wikipedia of being cult-like? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.167.70.212 (talk) 02:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Who says so? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's one that I happened to see today. —Tamfang (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

It appears he has gone to join that big cult in the sky. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

When did you stop beating your wife? clpo13_(talk) 02:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

To ask the question shows wrong-thinking, deviationism, lack of commitment to the greater good, and the need for re-education. DuncanHill (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, yes, this person needs some cranium cleansing desperately. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, now that Judge Gerrard has declared that Worshipping the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a real religion why should we not change our alliance and say “Hail Jimbo” – or something similar ? Whist behind closed doors I will still keep true to my Pastafarianism ways – outwardly I will appear to adopt Wikinisum, as I need something to believe in, so as to feel part of a larger community. And Wikinisum is large, too large perhaps, so I thinking of creating my own cult called Aspoetica. As I don't believe in sinful organizations like PayPal, you will have to apply by letter (enclosing a 20 dollar bill donation) for addmitance into my inner circle of devotees. For a 40 dollar donation I will grant you access to my inner-inner circle. Or you can refuse this never-to-repeated-offer and spend the rest of your life as a loser, a ne'er-do-well who never took the opportunity to better himself. If you can wait a day or two to get my web site up and running, it will tell you where to send your donations.--Aspro (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. Now, how am I going to sell all the FSM merch authentic relics I have? clpo13_(talk) 23:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Despair not my little one of little faith. Just like the Christians recycled the Egyptian symbol of their Sun Goddess and transformed it into a crucifix to symbolise the Son, so Aspoetica will transform your 'authentic' noodles. With a generous dollop of tomato sauce and a sprinkle of basil, for to pour this libation over your 'authentic' noodles and verily they will be transfigured into the body of Aspoetica (in other-words I will eat them) . Should your noodle be made of precious metal however, then we can place them securely in our crypt (crypt means 'hidden' so don't expect to see them again). Come, join us now and I will make you (we have gone metric) one of my ten desperadoes disciples . This unique offer only lasts until the end of April. Join Aspoetica now – you know it makes sense.--Aspro (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The Egyptian sun goddess was nailed to a cross??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

See Ankh and Christian cross. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

My general observation over the last 9 years on Wikipedia is that this claim usually follows the exact same sequence of events:

1. Person tries to add something to Wikipedia without references, or with bad references, or completely misinterpreted references
2. Fellow editor reverts for reasons of referencing
3. Person insists information is obvious, doesn't need a reference
4. Many editors turn up to say, "Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth"
5. OMG, WIKIPEDIA IS A CULT

Basically you start with plain old persecutory delusions/arrogance (I'm obviously right, so all these other people are either stupid or working against me), followed by cognitive dissonance (I should get my way even if no one agrees with me; also, no one else should be allowed to do anything without my OK), followed by either quitting or getting banned, and then finally complaining about Wikipedia on some other website. Or basically, a lot of people don't play well with others and have no business being part of a collaborative project. That's the best answer I can give for such an extremely general question. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's the kind of stuff I would see back when I did more work on recent change patrol and the deletion pages. Right up there with "Wikipedia is part of The Media working to keep the status quo and not let us promote our totally awesome band that won a regional battle of the bands a few years back." Matt Deres (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

There are similarities between Wikipedia and religion. For example, we have a mythology about how we were founded, with commentators arguing about it. We have rules that outsiders find impenetrable / pointless / weird. And we proselytise. There must be more parallels, too. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

One difference would be that if there is some highly contentious issue, schisms could occur. For example, the great debate over when to use hyphens: the hyphenators might split off and form Hyphenpedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

That would be a similarity, Bugs. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Except that they don't... Or do they? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

They do. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Shazam! We are like a cult! Scary! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

There are also splinters in Wikipediocracy, Deletionpedia and/or Wikipedia Review. Taking our money to build one hell of a spaceship, some say. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be our schism. A bit wordy. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Long term unemployed professionals in the United States

Hi there.

I'm sitting here reading some blogs and comments (apparently these are all over the information superhighway!) by quite a few middle aged former finance professionals and some attorneys as well, but mostly finance guys.

They are all curiously similar -- graduate of an Ivy League University or prestigious liberal arts college, used to work for a "top firm" in NYC, making mega bucks well into their thirties until they got "laid off."

This all sounds about right, the last decade has been an unstable time for finance professionals in NYC, first the NASDAQ crash in March 2000, then 9/11, the meltdown in derivatives, Bear Stearns and just one damn thing after another.

What struck me, however, is that all these guys claim they can't find any kind of work in finance at all after six to eight years of being continually unemployed. Nobody has said anything about why they got fired in the first place other than they got laid off in "bad times."

This is understandable but being out of work for almost ten years? Do you think a lot of these guys have been "blacklisted" and/or involved in the various corporate "scandals" both large and small over the last fifteen years or so?

Not that I wanna judge anyone else but that might explain at least part of it, no? Especially now when finding dirt on someone via the internet is quite easy and it stays on line forever.

Thoughts? Zombiesturm (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I've heard a lot of people complain that about the only way to get a job is to already have a job, though it was more about the economy in general. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

There could be a degree of guilt by association. That is, those who worked for a mismanaged and possibly criminal organization are "tarred with the same brush" as the organization itself. StuRat (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The laid-off people may also be looking for a better-paid job than what they had before, and not willing to take a big pay cut. This would seriously limit the jobs available. If the person has been out of the profession for several years, I would expect that employers would now consider them out of date dinosaurs, and not want to employ them. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

There are surprisingly a lot of papers on the causes of long-term unemployment. I'm not familiar with this field, so I'll just link the lot of them. The gist I get from reading these is that it's not simply a matter of bad luck, that some have just not found jobs in that time - the people who wind up in the long-term unemployed state are by-and-large actually less unemployable, and this has been attributed to a combination of factors (the unemployed becoming demoralized over time; employers being suspicious of anyone who hasn't worked in so long; and factors that actually make a specific person unemployable, such as a criminal conviction or being a douche). A lot of people have focused on this idea that employers only want to hire people who already have jobs. As Graeme said, someone who's been out of a job for so long might be assumed to be out of touch with recent changes in their field. Or an employer might be suspicious that a worker out of a job for that long has been too lazy to find a new one, or that there is some hidden reason the worker can't hold a job the employer hasn't uncovered. It reminds me the claim that being in a relationship makes you appear more attractive to other people. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I assume "less unemployable" is supposed to be "less employable". StuRat (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure that was a typo in this case. But as a former employment consultant, let me assure you that there are indeed degrees of unemployability. When I was retrenched from that job, fast approaching retirement age but not yet ready to retire, I discovered just how highly unemployable I suddenly became. What an irony, one day advising clients on how to maximise their chances of getting work, the next day learning that none of those ideas applied in reality to me because I was automatically out of contention for any job due to my age. Anyway, I've now retired and have never been busier. If only someone would actually pay me for all the work I do. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

In any case, I would say "more employable", rather than "less unemployable", if that was what I meant. StuRat (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

**WP:OR alert** I've known people in the UK in similar circumstances. Talking to them, it seems that the problem is not that there are no jobs out there that are suitable. There are. It's that there are no salaries out there that tempt them at their level. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

But what do they do with their time instead? Looking after the kids? I can see an argument that the salary they would earn would not compensate them for the loss of time with their families plus the cost of childcare. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

In the UK they would be claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (for which they have previously been paying "National Insurance"), but in order to qualify they would have to prove that they're spending at least 30+ hours/week in job-searching activities; many of the required activities might be next-to-useless for finding work in a field they're actually qualified for, and in the UK economy they won't be offered "lesser" jobs because the employers prefer less-qualified people (of whom there is a plentiful supply) for those, knowing that an over-qualified recruit will be looking to find a better job with someone else ASAP. Nevertheless, uselessly applying for such jobs is often the only way to meet their required weekly quota.

An additional barrier to taking temporary lower-paid work is that prospective future employers then won't want to employ them at the higher salary levels of their previous career (or at all), the snakes-and ladders scenario. Why, yes, I do speak from bitter experience. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Ones I know spend a lot of time working with friends in similar straits on tiny start-up ideas that may one day flower into lucrative enterprises. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)