At the moment we are still early in Mr. Trump’s second term. And we have been thrown every other day by some dramatic event, attack, flip flop, etc. Your point that we should look at his history to verify his tendency to use whatever power he has to advance personal interests is important. In addition to looking to Wilson as a counterpoint you can look to other autocrats for a sense of how things change the longer such a person holds power.
When on posting in Indonesia in the late 90s I met a local business person who had a marble quarry. It was during the Asian Economic Crisis and he was doing very well by contrast with the rest of the economy. He used only local inputs for his production and sold abroad for hard currency at a time when the rupiah was plummeting in value. I asked him if he was going to try to expand. He was adamant that this would not be a good thing as if his business grew too much it would attract the attention of Soeharto’s cronies (especially S’s children) and he would lose his company.
And this is the kind of situation which is likely to be duplicated in the United States the longer the current government is in place. People may not lose their companies but over time in order to do business or to gain advantage the only avenue is likely to be through currying favour with Mr. Trump and the people around him.
Congratulations on the book with Jimmy Wales! Well done you two! Just a quick note to readers to consider ordering with an indie bookseller. April 26 is Independent Canadian Booksellers Day. They have a website where you can find the indie in your neighbourhood. (The link in the post defaults to Amazon. Use it to get the publishing information to generate a suggestion to purchase with the local public library too.)
I fully agree with you on the CBC, which I now regard, especially on radio, as the Catastrophe Boosting Channel. Some decades ago it seemed to uphold its mandate and serve a valuable role, on TV as well as radio. Sadly, those days are gone. On TV, their very limited original content is largely propaganda.
As a long-term victim of false and malicious material against me on Wikipedia, I beg you to tone down your claims of its trustworthiness. I'm not the only one.
If an information source's claim of trustworthiness is dependent on on its perfect, no information source in history has been, or will be, trustworthy. If, however, we follow Thomas Sowell's advice and ask "compared to what?" -- and compare it to other encyclopedias and information sources, now and in the past -- it's pretty damned good.
This is not to deny Wikipedia's flaws and failings. I certainly didn't and won't. No reasonable person would. And no Wikipedia editor I ever met would (in fact, they all have a personal list of what they think the biggest problems are.)
The most dangerous form of disinformation is to embed falsehoods amid truths. Indeed, it is a standard and occasionally devastating form of disinformation. That is why I beg you to be more careful when characterizing Wikipedia.
That said, I just checked, and FINALLY (or at least temporarily?) Wikipedia allowed someone to correct its entry on me. I say "temporarily? " because it has been corrected and uncorrected many times.
Also, after many years, Wikipedia also has FINALLY added Miles R Palmer to its list of inventors of the Allam Power Cycle. Several years ago I tried to help our my friend and colleague Miles correct that omission by offering an edit to the Allam Cycle page, in which I coded by hand a table of his patents, each of these linked to the relevant US Patent Office website award.
My edit was rejected for two reasons: (1) As a mere female, I could not possibly have coded that table by myself. Therefore, I was guilty of plagiarizing the pretty looking table and inserting different data. (2) None of the patents were linked to a credible reference. If the US Patent office website isn't a credible reference, what is? You can see for yourself the tables of Dr. Palmer's patents that, yes, I coded all by myself. https://palmerlabs.io/allpatents.htm. If you do a "show source" on that webpage, you can see it wasn't an act of genius for even a mere woman with merely an MS in engineering to accomplish that.
P.S. My current Wikipedia article still entirely neglects my many refereed research publications and history as one of the most consistent superforecasters, while only covering the debates over the lies and darned lies of self-described "hackers." The real me, with links to enable anyone to verify my accomplishments, https://cmeinel.com. This current version still serves as disinformation, because how hard would it be, for example, to link to either my personal website or Google Scholar site https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=FqZ1btQAAAAJ&hl=en, or many other research websites that carry examples of my research? Trying to erase the truth is another tactic of despots.
Here's a link to one of the leading lights among Canadian historians, Christopher Moore. He writes social history, has won two GGs and has several best sellers to his credit. He's also written histories of Canada and the world for young students. Really worth checking him out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Moore_(Canadian_historian)
"a book with Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia. ... The Seven Rules of Trust ..."
Well, that's a self-refuting sentence. Unless some of the rules are "trust the stories told by people in power of your tribe, and never fact-check them". The whole story about how he's tried to erase Wikipedia's other co-founder from history is pretty shameful. It's not my world anymore, but, wow, is what you wrote ironic.
Certainly, many people do (believe what I think is nonsense), comes with the territory. But have you actually reviewed all the evidence, and formed an educated opinion based on evaluating the truthfulness of each side, taking into consideration how what they say comports with the historical record? That seems a basic requirement for trust. Perhaps you have, of course I can't have seen your book. But as the saying goes "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts".
Which claim? What I was reacting to was “never fact-check stories.” Wikipedia has been subjected to considerable testing and always stood up as well as a standard encyclopedia. Of course that doesn’t meant it’s flawless. No sane person would claim otherwise. But I’m a fan of Thomas Sowell’s advice to always ask “compared to what?” Compare Wikipedia to similar efforts, now and in the past, and it holds up remarkably well.
I thought it was clear from my sentence: "The whole story about how he's tried to erase Wikipedia's other co-founder from history is pretty shameful. ". To back up a bit, are you even aware of this matter, and the claims of outright lying which, merely being descriptive, have been made by both parties. You didn't (or couldn't) even counter-argue to me that Wikipedia itself is validated that he wasn't completely successful in doing the erasure in Wikipedia itself.
I'm very snarky and cynical about it these days, since I've encountered a lot of viewpoint which seems to be about backing the powerful person because that's where, the not money, but more like tribal status, is.
Yeah, I know about the controversy. And frankly, while I think it may be important (and reasonably so) for the people involved, for those interested in the institution and lessons we can learn from it, it's inside baseball of no relevance. It's particularly irrelevant for this book because the book is about trust, what worked for Wikipedia, what worked for others, and what lessons anyone can make use of. The book is most certainly NOT "Jimmy Wales is a saint, be saintly like Jimmy," which -- it seems to me -- would be the only way this controversy would be relevant.
As for "backing the powerful person," I have a thirty-year career of not giving a fuck about that particular consideration, and I have the scars to show for it. So, no. It ain't that.
I most fundamentally and sincerely disagree with your perspective here. I view dismissiveness as "inside baseball" as a statement that if the strong take advantage of the weak, the strong will not be held to account for their actions, since they are the strong. Bluntly, *IF* Wales is lying as charged, I believe it is deeply morally wrong to spread the lies. It sends a message to anyone being lied about, "You don't matter, you're not important enough".
And connects as an illustration of one theme of Wikipedia critique - not caring about what is true, but regurgitating beliefs, however of Team Blue Intellectual, not Team Red Lunatic. Which counts as "trust". But that's a long topic, and I gave up on it, again, not my fight anymore.
Congratulations on your book You may want to check out the Canadian small press Somewhat Grumpy Press. Have read some historical fiction accounts of Canadians in Canada or their forbears in Armenia.
As a cross-border deal lawyer, trust was imperative to close deals since projects were often in places that our clients did not know well. Clients trusted the large NY and London law firms to have local contacts in the local governments and in the local legal community to guide the deals to be successful. Trump has been targetting those large law firms and has recieved millions of dollars in free legal work which will be used outside the US to undermine trust in the rule of law in global trade and the international systems Wilson tried to create. Trump has Bondi and the US Justice department for his domestic agenda. The global law firms free work will be used for his foreign agenda
Glad to see McGoogan, Shoals, and others getting mentioned. And me too! But props to you for linking the decline in historical writing to the killing off of the infrastructure that used to make it all possible.-- Christopher Moore
Congratulations on the new book. I’m greatly looking forward to its publication day. On the subject of Wikipedia I read something really interesting about Wikipedia. “Following the first hyperlink in the main text of an English Wikipedia article, and then repeating the process for subsequent articles, usually leads to the Philosophy article. In February 2016, this was true for 97% of all articles on Wikipedia[1], an increase from 94.52% in 2011. The remaining articles lead to an article without any outgoing wikilinks, to pages that do not exist, or get stuck in loops.” (Computer science for example as 11 links to philosophy)
Pre-ordered! I have been working on trust in my leadership teaching for the reasons you mention and am always on the lookout for new resources. Thanks for digging into such an important topic, particularly for gen Z folks trying to navigate teamwork and cooperation.
At the moment we are still early in Mr. Trump’s second term. And we have been thrown every other day by some dramatic event, attack, flip flop, etc. Your point that we should look at his history to verify his tendency to use whatever power he has to advance personal interests is important. In addition to looking to Wilson as a counterpoint you can look to other autocrats for a sense of how things change the longer such a person holds power.
When on posting in Indonesia in the late 90s I met a local business person who had a marble quarry. It was during the Asian Economic Crisis and he was doing very well by contrast with the rest of the economy. He used only local inputs for his production and sold abroad for hard currency at a time when the rupiah was plummeting in value. I asked him if he was going to try to expand. He was adamant that this would not be a good thing as if his business grew too much it would attract the attention of Soeharto’s cronies (especially S’s children) and he would lose his company.
And this is the kind of situation which is likely to be duplicated in the United States the longer the current government is in place. People may not lose their companies but over time in order to do business or to gain advantage the only avenue is likely to be through currying favour with Mr. Trump and the people around him.
Congratulations on the book with Jimmy Wales! Well done you two! Just a quick note to readers to consider ordering with an indie bookseller. April 26 is Independent Canadian Booksellers Day. They have a website where you can find the indie in your neighbourhood. (The link in the post defaults to Amazon. Use it to get the publishing information to generate a suggestion to purchase with the local public library too.)
You know how to make an old man tear up.
I fully agree with you on the CBC, which I now regard, especially on radio, as the Catastrophe Boosting Channel. Some decades ago it seemed to uphold its mandate and serve a valuable role, on TV as well as radio. Sadly, those days are gone. On TV, their very limited original content is largely propaganda.
As a long-term victim of false and malicious material against me on Wikipedia, I beg you to tone down your claims of its trustworthiness. I'm not the only one.
If an information source's claim of trustworthiness is dependent on on its perfect, no information source in history has been, or will be, trustworthy. If, however, we follow Thomas Sowell's advice and ask "compared to what?" -- and compare it to other encyclopedias and information sources, now and in the past -- it's pretty damned good.
This is not to deny Wikipedia's flaws and failings. I certainly didn't and won't. No reasonable person would. And no Wikipedia editor I ever met would (in fact, they all have a personal list of what they think the biggest problems are.)
The most dangerous form of disinformation is to embed falsehoods amid truths. Indeed, it is a standard and occasionally devastating form of disinformation. That is why I beg you to be more careful when characterizing Wikipedia.
That said, I just checked, and FINALLY (or at least temporarily?) Wikipedia allowed someone to correct its entry on me. I say "temporarily? " because it has been corrected and uncorrected many times.
Also, after many years, Wikipedia also has FINALLY added Miles R Palmer to its list of inventors of the Allam Power Cycle. Several years ago I tried to help our my friend and colleague Miles correct that omission by offering an edit to the Allam Cycle page, in which I coded by hand a table of his patents, each of these linked to the relevant US Patent Office website award.
My edit was rejected for two reasons: (1) As a mere female, I could not possibly have coded that table by myself. Therefore, I was guilty of plagiarizing the pretty looking table and inserting different data. (2) None of the patents were linked to a credible reference. If the US Patent office website isn't a credible reference, what is? You can see for yourself the tables of Dr. Palmer's patents that, yes, I coded all by myself. https://palmerlabs.io/allpatents.htm. If you do a "show source" on that webpage, you can see it wasn't an act of genius for even a mere woman with merely an MS in engineering to accomplish that.
P.S. My current Wikipedia article still entirely neglects my many refereed research publications and history as one of the most consistent superforecasters, while only covering the debates over the lies and darned lies of self-described "hackers." The real me, with links to enable anyone to verify my accomplishments, https://cmeinel.com. This current version still serves as disinformation, because how hard would it be, for example, to link to either my personal website or Google Scholar site https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=FqZ1btQAAAAJ&hl=en, or many other research websites that carry examples of my research? Trying to erase the truth is another tactic of despots.
Here's a link to one of the leading lights among Canadian historians, Christopher Moore. He writes social history, has won two GGs and has several best sellers to his credit. He's also written histories of Canada and the world for young students. Really worth checking him out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Moore_(Canadian_historian)
"a book with Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia. ... The Seven Rules of Trust ..."
Well, that's a self-refuting sentence. Unless some of the rules are "trust the stories told by people in power of your tribe, and never fact-check them". The whole story about how he's tried to erase Wikipedia's other co-founder from history is pretty shameful. It's not my world anymore, but, wow, is what you wrote ironic.
You’re more than welcome to think what you will. I’m more than welcome to think what you think is nonsense.
Certainly, many people do (believe what I think is nonsense), comes with the territory. But have you actually reviewed all the evidence, and formed an educated opinion based on evaluating the truthfulness of each side, taking into consideration how what they say comports with the historical record? That seems a basic requirement for trust. Perhaps you have, of course I can't have seen your book. But as the saying goes "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts".
Which claim? What I was reacting to was “never fact-check stories.” Wikipedia has been subjected to considerable testing and always stood up as well as a standard encyclopedia. Of course that doesn’t meant it’s flawless. No sane person would claim otherwise. But I’m a fan of Thomas Sowell’s advice to always ask “compared to what?” Compare Wikipedia to similar efforts, now and in the past, and it holds up remarkably well.
I thought it was clear from my sentence: "The whole story about how he's tried to erase Wikipedia's other co-founder from history is pretty shameful. ". To back up a bit, are you even aware of this matter, and the claims of outright lying which, merely being descriptive, have been made by both parties. You didn't (or couldn't) even counter-argue to me that Wikipedia itself is validated that he wasn't completely successful in doing the erasure in Wikipedia itself.
I'm very snarky and cynical about it these days, since I've encountered a lot of viewpoint which seems to be about backing the powerful person because that's where, the not money, but more like tribal status, is.
Yeah, I know about the controversy. And frankly, while I think it may be important (and reasonably so) for the people involved, for those interested in the institution and lessons we can learn from it, it's inside baseball of no relevance. It's particularly irrelevant for this book because the book is about trust, what worked for Wikipedia, what worked for others, and what lessons anyone can make use of. The book is most certainly NOT "Jimmy Wales is a saint, be saintly like Jimmy," which -- it seems to me -- would be the only way this controversy would be relevant.
As for "backing the powerful person," I have a thirty-year career of not giving a fuck about that particular consideration, and I have the scars to show for it. So, no. It ain't that.
I most fundamentally and sincerely disagree with your perspective here. I view dismissiveness as "inside baseball" as a statement that if the strong take advantage of the weak, the strong will not be held to account for their actions, since they are the strong. Bluntly, *IF* Wales is lying as charged, I believe it is deeply morally wrong to spread the lies. It sends a message to anyone being lied about, "You don't matter, you're not important enough".
And connects as an illustration of one theme of Wikipedia critique - not caring about what is true, but regurgitating beliefs, however of Team Blue Intellectual, not Team Red Lunatic. Which counts as "trust". But that's a long topic, and I gave up on it, again, not my fight anymore.
Congratulations on your book You may want to check out the Canadian small press Somewhat Grumpy Press. Have read some historical fiction accounts of Canadians in Canada or their forbears in Armenia.
As a cross-border deal lawyer, trust was imperative to close deals since projects were often in places that our clients did not know well. Clients trusted the large NY and London law firms to have local contacts in the local governments and in the local legal community to guide the deals to be successful. Trump has been targetting those large law firms and has recieved millions of dollars in free legal work which will be used outside the US to undermine trust in the rule of law in global trade and the international systems Wilson tried to create. Trump has Bondi and the US Justice department for his domestic agenda. The global law firms free work will be used for his foreign agenda
Glad to see McGoogan, Shoals, and others getting mentioned. And me too! But props to you for linking the decline in historical writing to the killing off of the infrastructure that used to make it all possible.-- Christopher Moore
Ken McGoogan.
Eagerly awaiting the release of THE SEVEN RULES OF TRUST. Kudos.
Adam Shoalts wrote « A history of Canada in ten maps ». Great book. Stephen Bown. Ken McGoogan. And many more.
Congratulations on the new book. I’m greatly looking forward to its publication day. On the subject of Wikipedia I read something really interesting about Wikipedia. “Following the first hyperlink in the main text of an English Wikipedia article, and then repeating the process for subsequent articles, usually leads to the Philosophy article. In February 2016, this was true for 97% of all articles on Wikipedia[1], an increase from 94.52% in 2011. The remaining articles lead to an article without any outgoing wikilinks, to pages that do not exist, or get stuck in loops.” (Computer science for example as 11 links to philosophy)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Getting_to_Philosophy
Pre-ordered! I have been working on trust in my leadership teaching for the reasons you mention and am always on the lookout for new resources. Thanks for digging into such an important topic, particularly for gen Z folks trying to navigate teamwork and cooperation.