Talk:Singularitarianism

Green Anarchist

The green anarchist line is identical in the lede and in the body. I've removed it from the article body but not the lede. While the lede should reference the content of the article, it should not be a verbatim copy. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Although I've restored the line to the lede and will edit it be different from the line in the body, please point me to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) guideline which explicitly states that while the lede should reference the content of the article it should not be a verbatim copy. --Loremaster (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The lede is off track. To wit, from WP:LEAD

• “Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body.” In this case, beyond the first paragraph, the lede is just excerpts from the body. That’s not greater generality.
• “The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.” The lede does not read as a broad, concise description of the article. It reads as a definition of Singularitarianism and a couple of sound bytes of criticism.
• “The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific.” The lede is exactly as specific as the article on several topics it covers, having simply lifted text directly from the article. The description in the lede is not neutral; a full half of the precious space of the lede is devoted to specific criticisms of the topic. This reflects some agenda rather than a general description of the topic. A proper lede would state the controversies in general terms, not dive into cherry-picked details.
• “The lead should define the topic,” which it does, “establish context,” which it does to some extent, “explain why the subject is interesting or notable,” which is does not, “and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies,” which it also does not. That is, it does not summarize the most important points. It goes into detail about a couple of points. It was even worse before removing etymology, which bizarrely had a whole lede paragraph devoted to, ignoring the lede length guidelines for an article of this size.

Strebe (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you. The real problem lies in the fact that the content in the body of the article is already a general overview of the subject so it is hard for the lead section to be even more general. So the current version of the lead section is fine until the body is significantly improved. Ultimately, IRWolfie and you need to let it go and move on. --Loremaster (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You are in no position to tell people what they need to let go and move on about. I suggest you use Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines as a benchmark for discussion. There is no such thing as “can’t make it more general”. I already did that; you reverted it. The lede sucks, to put it in the vernacular. I have explained why and how. You, on the other hand, are making bizarre excuses and ordering people around. That really does not bode well.

Strebe (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Your overgeneralization made the pagagraph too short but also uninformative. That being said, I will restore the disputed content but improve it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I have given several reasons founded on Wikipedia guidelines for my version of the lede edits. You, Loremaster, not only have failed to cite a single Wikipedia rationalizations for your version, but you have bossed around other editors, ignored the fact that no other editors support your position, have ignored the Wikipedia policies I brought to bear to explain why the article needs improvement, and have offered nothing but subjective opinions in an effort to coddle and preserve your own edits.

The lede paragraph is supposed to be general. Meanwhile you keep injecting into it your apparent personal favorite “Rapture of the Nerds” metaphor and details about opposition groups. They are a level of specificity appropriate only to the article body. In point of fact my proposed edits are more informative than yours because they summarize more of the article and they do it economically. Your edits fixate on details of interest to you, creating a flabby, patchy, confusing lede. Furthermore everything you keep putting into the lede duplicates at the same level of detail what is already in the body. Your arguments for this are transparent rationalizations. No professional editor would agree with this amateurish editing and manipulation of agenda, and certainly no Wikipedia guideline permits it.

Do you understand that you do not own or control this article? Do you understand that in the end, the article will conform to Wikipedia guidelines, not whatever content and arrangement happen to titillate you? Strebe (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted your unsourced sentence that is glaringly too short and uninformative. I've replaced with a sourced paragraph that is in fact a generalization of content in the body. Unlike the previous paragrah, it is neither inappropriately lengthy nor too detailed nor too verbose nor does it completely duplicate body text. I will continue tweaking it if necessary. All of this is in line with the Wikipedia guidelines you cite. --Loremaster (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

These inclusions still require third party sources to establish they are not a fringe view. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Singularitarianism itself is a fringe view... --Loremaster (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

and as a result it makes no sense to have anything other than mainstream criticism of it. (i.e mainstream criticism of it as the rapture of the nerds). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

In order to resolve this dispute, I've removed all content based on the Green Anarchy article but I have and will continue to restore to the lead section an improved version of the specific criticisms expressed by John Horgan and David Correira since they are notable mainstream journalists and scholars while IEEE and CounterPunch are reliable sources. --Loremaster (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

is CounterPunch reliable? It doesn't appear to be: "Counterpunch.org, a conspiracy-mongering website run by Nation columnist Alexander Cockburn" [1]. Related reliable sources discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_10#CounterPunch. I don't think it should be used for grounds for inclusion, since nothing has been shown to establish David Correira as mainstream. IRWolfie- (talk)

It wouldn't be wise to judge the reliability of a source based on an opinion piece by a neo-conservative pundit who has been criticized for dishonesty. That being said, CounterPunch isn't being used to support a fact but only to report the opinion of a university professor. --Loremaster (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

An assistant professor isn't a professor. but anyway: being an academic does not make his claims mainstream. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You are correct on the professor issue. However, although Wikipedia considers mainstream scholars and journalists to be the most reliable sources, their viewpoints don't have to be “mainstream” in the sense of them being accepted and held by a majority of people. They only have to be significant and Wikipedia guidelines demand that we fairly represent all significant viewpoints. That being said, this dispute has reminded me that I've actually read articles/essays by other critics who essentially express the same opinion as Correira so I will track them down and add them to support his viewpoint. --Loremaster (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be better if they are added instead of his since his view has not been shown to be significant either. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It has been cited in H+ Magazine and some blogs by thinkers critical of Singularitarianism:

Counterpunch Expose: H+ “Journal” a Part of Ruling Class Conspiracy!

Sean Hannity is a cyborg

My Response to the Counterpunch Expose of Singularitarianism

However, my point is that Correira reinforced an opinion shared by other critics and therefore is “mainstream”. --Loremaster (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing in those blogs that makes his claims mainstream. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You are confusing two arguments I am making: 1) Correira's criticism of Singularitarianism is significant because it has been cited by other sources, and 2) other critics of Singularitarianism share his viewpoint so it isn't “fringe”. Dale Carrico has repeatedly expressed the same criticism of Singularitarianism in his blog Amor Mundi. --Loremaster (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

offtopic?

The paragraph beginning "In July 2009, academics and technical experts, some of whom were Singularitarians ..." appears a bit off topic, or at least a bit too much info on it not related to this Singularitarianism movement. Does anyone else agree? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It is the best example of what Singularitarians are interested in and actually do but I'm not opposed to the paragraph being shortened. --Loremaster (talk) 09:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I edit the first sentence of the disputed paragraph to say "In July 2009, many prominent Singularitarians..." not only to make the paragrah less offtopic but also for the sake of accuracy. --Loremaster (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

wikilinking to new religious movement

Wikilinking to new religious movement is inappropiate. Loremaster, do not revert my edits without some form of comment please. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You haven't offered a good explanation (nor pointed to a Wikipedia guideline on the subject) as to why wikilinking to new religious movement is inappropiate. Keep in mind, this neutral term is being used over the more the loaded term some critics have used: cult. --Loremaster (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Add the source that Singularitarianism as a New religious movement and that which labels it as a cult. Also please do not revert my edits without marking them as being reverted and give a justification. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Since I don't want to needlessly sow the seeds for future edit wars with users who will try to delete the word “cult” even if it is sourced, I prefer more closely summarizing Horgan's criticism. --Loremaster (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, here is a good quote from an April 2011 Religion Dispatches essay, The Cult of Kurzweil: Will Robots Save Our Souls?:

What we see is the emergence of a genuine religious tradition. Is it new? Not exactly: faith in technology to produce transcendent human conditions is centuries old. But this manifestation, whether it be under the label of transhumanism, Singularitarianism, or (as I’ve called it) Apocalyptic AI, has a cultural cachet that goes far and allows it to separate itself from other religious visions. Sacred books such as Moravec’s Mind Children (1988) and Kurzweil’s The Singularity Is Near (2005) and documentary films like Transcendent Man establish a textual tradition that forms the core of an entire belief system promising salvation, encouraging embodied practices (most of which are designed to keep an individual alive until the coming day of upload), and establishing a worldview through which all of science, religion, and politics may be judged.

So I may restore the disputed term. --Loremaster (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You haven't shown that this website is in any way significant or mainstream. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Religion Dispatches is an online religion magazine based at Emory University, which has been nominated in the 15th Annual Webby Awards competition in the Religion and Spirituality category on April 18, 2011.[2] Is that significant or maintream enough for you? --Loremaster (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)