Googlocracy

[Celso Alvarez Cáccamo]

(Cross-posted to the Discourse list)

Teun / Jim,

Well, good luck to y'all with your attempts to correct the Untruth ;-) 
about DA, CDA, LA or yourselves in the Wikipedia. The true truth is that, 
if the Wikipedia has more readers than Teun's own page, for example, then 
there is no point ;-) . It's called Googlocracy--

((Ooops, let me tell you: I happily thought I'd just come up with the term 
Googlocracy --a tiny word-coining satisfaction we are entitled to, aren't 
we?--  and to my horror I find out that there are already about 180 entries 
in Google for it!

So, let me try "Wikicracy"...: 64 entries. I'm getting closer to 
Originality ;-) .

What about "Untruthcracy".... ZERO entries!  BINGO!))

So, it's called Untruthcracy. It's an ugly word, but the others are taken. 
Cut-and-Paste-cracy also works. In Portuguese, "plagiocracia" doesn't sound 
bad.


Some years ago I ran my own incursions in the Wikipedia in order to correct 
blasphemous Untruths about Galiza's language, and I know how frustrating it 
can be. Of course I've stopped even checking how the entries look now. 
After all, I am only one, and They are always many. And, after all, I also 
write what I want in my own web pages. Anyone can. Anyone could even 
manipulate a recorded lecture by Teun, if they wished, to the point it 
would be difficult to distinguish his discourse from Chomsky's ;-).

In the Wikipedia perhaps you may learn how infrawaves or laser work, or 
something about dynasties in Ancient Egypt, but not what things ARE (if 
indeed they are). If you ask me today, the best way to correct Untruths is 
to discredit the Wikipedia, not to try to join it. The wiki method/software 
itself is a great collaborative resource, but it has to be wisely managed.

And we all know that "wisely managed" means managed by ourselves ;-) . 
Well, it's the working of Capital at its best. Gnoseocracy. Pixelocracy. 
Oh, gone are the glorious times of the Large Authoritative Printed 
Encyclopedias! Printed paper is burning around us everywhere, and it's 
dangerous: Because, how can we now retain Knowledge in a magnetic array of 
pixels?: Only the black-and-white opposition remains from old times. Even 
so, does a sudden inversion of colors (Create Negative Image) mean an 
inversion of meanings? And, where *is* the meaning: in the inverted pixel, 
or in the inversion process? What happens in-between?

(Literally copied from Wikipedia entry "Pseudo-Semiotics").


Cheers,
-celso

Celso Alvarez Cáccamo
lxalvarz at udc.es