I am kind of an absolutist, but not really. I've grown more conservative as liberals have gotten older. I always have a good reason for what I do, and a better reason for what I don't do. I believe in every god I've ever seen.
I believe good enough is better than best.
I am pro-cheeseburger.
Random things I like:
*cannoli *Thomas Sowell *baseball *beer *James Clavell *Robert A. Heinlein *capitalism *turkey *technology *mountains *Verdi *Firefly *Gary Becker *dividends
Suggested addition to the Wikipedia FAQ page (Sept 17 2006):
Q: Wikipedia is a threat to my worldview. What can I do?
A: According to many worldviews, there is no way Wikipedia could ever be successful. A system like this just can't work. The fact that it does work and is enormously successful proves these worldviews are in error. Since people adopt worldviews because they find them comforting or flattering, proving a worldview to be in error provokes resentment and hostility, as people are robbed of their cherished illusions. This is why so many people get so upset by the very existence of Wikipedia. How else can you explain a strong emotional response to a free online encyclopedia?
People have adopted two types of response to this threat. The first is to hate Wikipedia. But people can't just say something like, "Wikipedia contradicts my assumptions about the nature of order and authority, and that's why I hate it." They have to dress up their hatred to make it appear justified. So they look for something objectionable about Wikipedia, exaggerate its significance, and claim, "See, this is bad...this is why I hate Wikipedia." If you wish to try this response, feel free to use any excuse to justify your pre-existing hatred, no matter how petty or silly. It is doubtful you will be able to outdo those who have come before you, in this respect.
The other way to respond to Wikipedia's threat to your worldview is to love Wikipedia, but to delude yourself into thinking it represents proof of your worldview. The way to do this is to dream up explanations for why Wikipedia is successful that harmonize with your worldview. Given your assumptions, decide what sort of things ought to work, then pretend Wikipedia is one of those things. Go all out and participate in Wikipedia, even at a high level, and try to force Wikipedia to more purely conform to what you imagine it to be. Never mind that success at this would destroy the thing you purport to love. This would be a small price to pay for reaffirming your assumptions.
In both cases, make a point of ignoring the evidence. Make a game of it - see how much evidence you can ignore. After all, evidence is only useful in testing a hypothesis - and the last thing you want is for your cherished illusions to be put to a test.
Wikipedia moves asymptotically towards perfection. At any given moment, there is stuff we don't cover, factual errors, etc. As Wikipedia grows, and moves closer to perfection, errors and shortcomings grow smaller. Wikipedia is thus a process, rather than an end state. Criticizing Wikipedia for errors and shortcomings that exist now misses this point entirely.
What is preferable: An authoritative encyclopedia that is 99.9% accurate, but which costs $10 million a year to maintain? Or an encyclopedia that is 95% accurate, but which costs maybe $100,000 a year to maintain? And that, on this much smaller budget, will grow more accurate every year? And that, because it does not demand perfect accuracy, is able to cover a much broader range of topics? And that, on top of this, is free?