Talk:Chuck Munson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Chuck Munson, has edited Wikipedia as
Chuck0 (talk · contribs).
This user's editing has included this article.

Readers are encouraged to review Wikipedia:Autobiography for information concerning autobiographical articles on Wikipedia.
Image:File-manager.svg
Archives

Contents

[edit] Media references and published works

If anybody is really, really curious, they can find a more comprehensive list of my press clippings and a list of where I've been published at my blog Another Blog Is Possible. The blog also has an About Me page and a draft overview of why I identify as an anarchist.

[edit] Quote from Critical Studies in Media Communication

Okay, what's the scoop on the use of this article? From the edit summary of the edit at 19:31, we are supposed to learn that this individual "can only be" Munson. At best, this is original research; it might also be unverifiable. thanks... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Check almost any other external link on the page; Munson runs Infoshop.org. The ref isn't even necessary to establish he is an anarchist, and can be easily replaced, but it does verify info about Munson and it is a useful piece for readers. скоморохъ 19:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
But do you disagree that the use of the reference in this way constitutes original research? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a little abusive of the OR tag. When something as benign as this is totally obvious, please ignore all rules. Murderbike (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
What you might be thinking of is WP:SYN. And no, I agree with Murderbike; it's clear as day and uncontroversial that Munson is a) an anarchist b) the individual behind Infoshop.org and c) the person referred to in that quote. You can challenge it if you like, but I don't exactly see why anyone would want to. Regards, скоморохъ 19:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, of course, synthesis. The reason to object to it is that it makes it more difficult to argue in other cases where something isn't as benign; it doesn't strike me as a good precedent. As for whether or not he's an anarchist, I have no idea - never heard of him before. I just think the source doesn't do the work claimed for it here. Why do you consider it necessary to use it? Are there no other sources that will do? thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
There's no worry about precedent - Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. If you look to the first discussion on this page, you will see that Munson himself has listed a number of resources, including Why I am an anarchist for editors use. We don't have to use this specific source here, I just think it would be a shame to remove it altogether as it has a lot of informative material, is a secondary source, and is a reliable scholarly source, unlike much info on Munson online. I'll move it somewhere else. Regards, скоморохъ 20:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I've also just noticed that the quote refers to someone in DC, but in the intro to the page on Munson here it says that he is in Kansas. (If only it were true that "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy"!! People argue in terms of precedent all the time here, and I imagine that's inevitable.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, Munson's location differed at the respective timesof writing - he did spend some time in DC.[1] It helps in general to keep a firm grasp of Ignore all rules in mind, I think. We wouldn't want to have to find sources for the claim that Tony Blair is expressly not a Martian, for example. Hope the new version of the article is more to your liking. Regards, скоморохъ 20:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
My take is that this citation was added by somebody to shut up the idiot who was questioning anything and everything about the entry on me. They had a political axe to grind and they took out their problems with me by arguing that I wasn't an anarchist. This "citation trolling", for want of a better term, is an annoying abuse of Wikipedia. It's well-established that I'm an anarchist. The New York Times even published a feature on me that noted that I am an anarchist. People ought to read that article on Slashdot today about the fight between "inclusionists" and "deletionists" across Wikipedia. What this person was doing is similar to the deletionist philosophy. This cited article may be a bit off topic, but I think whoever added it was making a good faith effort to provide citations to shut up the troll. Chuck0 (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New changes

Given that I am an active Wikipedian, people really ought to ask me before they make additions and changes to this entry. This entry was way too long before the recent changes and now some of the changes reflect the agenda of Wikipedia critics. The sentence about my anarchist political beliefs, with the citation to my blog article, is a nice addition, but the addition of words about anarcho-capitalism reflect the priorities of other Wikipedia editors, not any of my priorities as an anarchist. I removed the sentence about my early years, as my religious background is irrelevant and the part about Kansas City, Kansas is completely wrong. I grew up in south Kansas City, in both Missouri and Kansas. Kansas City, Kansas is west of KCMO. Look it up on the map. People outside of KC get that wrong all the time.

The sentence about my involvement in anti-filtering campaigns is also inaccurate. It is true that a briefly ran an anti-filtering website, a fact that is less interesting than my activism against pro-filtering librarians and activists. The sentence falsely implies that the Anarchist Librarians Web was short-lived--in fact, it is still online and has been online for 10 years. I was a co-founder of the "anarchist librarians movement" which got started 10 years ago and currently has an active e-mail list of over 300 people. Chuck0 (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I am definitively an "outsider" to this article/topic, and so I have no investment here other than very general Wikipedia principles and policies. I would simply like to observe that, while it is reasonable for a living person as a "subject" to comment on the article and even to edit in particular ways, BLP (and Wikipedia more generally) does not give a privileged position to the "subject" of an article when it comes to editing. It is simply untrue that the subject must be consulted prior to editing, and decisions about what is "relevant" are a matter of debate and consensus. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Chuck didn't say that you "must" consult him, just that we "ought" to, which makes a heck of a lot of sense. Murderbike (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Right. Perhaps I should have bolded ought to underscore that I wasn't demanding that I be consulted. My point was that I'm here and can answer questions and provide citations. Just trying to be helpful. Chuck0 (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yo, thanks for responding (and not reverting), Chuck. I was motivated to start expanding this article after I noticed your userpage was a better resource on the subject than our article; the sources are scant and I had to fill in the gaps a little in places. So apologies for the error with regard to the Anarchist Librarians Web; the Kansas City info I took from the source. If you want a better picture of your filtering activism, just point us to a source with the info and we will add it in. As for the anarchist without adjectives/anarcho-capitalism reference, I thought it gave the reader a good idea of what kind of anarchist you are. I reworded the sentence to make it less leading, I hope the new version is an improvement.

As regards asking you before making changes to this article, the proposition is of course ridiculous; this is a free encyclopedia which anyone can edit and no-one owns any article. If you intend on monitoring this page regularly, it is probably a good idea to give you a heads-up so that easily-rebutted info such as that on Kansas City can be prevented from going in. I'm still not happy with the state of the article; it relies far too heavily on the subject as a source, is a scattered and patchy biography and has no criticism of someone who is no stranger to ideological/movementarian conflict. For my part, if I continue to try and expand the article (and all articles should be expanded with appropriate content, WP:SIZE permitting) I'll keep in mind your willingness to help keep the facts in check. It's worth remembering though, that your status as a notable Wikipedian affords you no authority here. Regards, скоморохъ 00:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Chuck0, it's me, earthworm. I'm not going to edit the article because I know you, but I do echo Murderbike's sentiment that it makes an awful lot of sense to run something by the wold's foremost expert on a subject (which I would think Chuck0 would be on the subject of himself) for accuracy, if we happen to have him on hand. But I don't think anyone was implying any ownership of the article :-) delldot on a public computer talk 02:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not a big deal, but I'm active on Wikipedia, even if most of that activity means that I'm reading articles and watching pages. Yes, this biography represents a patchwork of edits over the years. That's what Wikipedia produces. I think that the article is too long by current Wikipedia standards, even though I'm an "inclusionist" who thinks that articles should be longer, rather than shorter. This entry was started several years ago, back in the "Wild West" days of Wikipedia. This article was started (not by me) back when most articles didn't have citations and editors were throwing in everything save the kitchen sink.
Those of you who know me, or are long time editors, know that this entry has been frequently vandalized, both by people who dislike my politics and several crazies out there who thought they could use Wikipedia to facilitate their attacks. I was active in reverting many of those attacks, until Wikipedia developed a more reliable process of preventing the use of biography articles to attack people. I'm glad that things have settle down. I've also added material to this article back in 2006, just to provide more information about myself.
I appreciate that скоморохъ has been using material from my blog to add citations. Part of the reason why I added that material to my blog was because some editors here were questioning every single fact about me in this entry. The number of "citations needed" that have been added to this article have been excessive, but it's good to see that more citations have been added.
I disagree with the suggestion that this entry needs more critical things about me. Adding that material would constitute a personal attack and would fall afoul of current Wikipedia guidelines about biographies and organizations. If I can't add critical links to organizational pages, then people shouldn't be using this entry to attack my reputation. I will end here by reiterating that almost all of the personal attacks that have been directed at me come from crazies and people who nitpick my politics. I'm actually not that controversial. I state my opinions like everybody else. Chuck0 (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I'm more than willing to take your word for it. Thanks for having an even-handed attitude towards the matter. скоморохъ 00:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anarchism without adjectives

This statement is absurd: "Munson identifies as an anarchist without adjectives, describing himself as "an anarchist who is open-minded about anarchist ideas",[8] and rejects the notion that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, citing its lack of opposition to "the hierarchical authoritarian capitalist workplace." If that's the case, then he's not an anarchist without adjectives. If a person is an anarchist without adjectives, that means he doesn't care what the proposed system is like, hierarchical auhotarian or not, as long as no one is forced to join that system. That's what anarchism without adjectives is. Voltairine de Cleyre described this way: "There is nothing un-Anarchistic about any of [these systems] until the element of compulsion enters and obliges unwilling persons to remain in a community whose economic arrangements they do not agree to. (When I say 'do not agree to' I do not mean that they have a mere distaste for...I mean serious differences which in their opinion threaten their essential liberties...)...Therefore I say that each group of persons acting socially in freedom may choose any of the proposed systems, and be just as thorough-going Anarchists as those who select another." Claiming someone an anarchist without adjectives while saying he claims that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism is incoherent. That defies the meaning of the term. Operation Spooner (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I call Zaxlebax. We have two claims:
1. Anarchism without adjectives is inclusive of, and only inclusive of, all types of anarchism
2. Anarcho-capitalism is a type of anarchism
Munson holds, perfectly consistently, the first claim while denying the second. You hold both claims. The only issue here is whether the second claim is true. To a left anarchist, "anarcho-capitalism" is as coherent as "anarcho-statism" or "dry wetness". There is no logical error, incoherence or absurdity afoot in Munson's point of view, you are just defining your terms differently. Nothing to see here. Skomorokh 05:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
No, that misses the point of anarchism without adjectives. Read what Cleyre said. "There is nothing unarchistic about.." If someone claims that a proposed "anarchist" system whose adherents don't say they will force anyone into their society is unarchistic, then he's not an anarchist without adjectives. What gave rise to anarchism without adjective is people claiming that each other's systems weren't genuine anarchism. So there is no way possible that he can be an anarchist without adjectives, as it's normally understood, that I can see. Operation Spooner (talk) 05:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
All it shows is that de Cleyre, Munson and Woodward have different conceptions of what AWA is. Skomorokh 05:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Or Munson is using the term without grasping the traditional meaning of the term. But of course no one says one has to be traditional to be an anarchist. Or do they? Operation Spooner (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
If they did, your anarcho-capitalists would be in trouble ;) Nah, the way I see it the term just means "I recognize more than one form of anarchism, but the differences between forms are not important to me." Skomorokh 05:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

On another note, is this guy even notable enough for an article? Recently the Per Bylund article was deleted because he wasn't notable enough, and he doesn't seem to be any more notable than that guy. Operation Spooner (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Two AfD's seemed to think so: first, second. In my opinion, being interviewed by the NYT and WashPo make someone notable enough. Bylund wouldn't get that coverage in a million years. Skomorokh 05:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what that makes someone notable enough for an article. My father for example, has been interviewed by NYT, WSJ, and other newspapers, more than Munson has, but I don't think that makes him notable enough for an article. People are interviewed by newspapers all the time. I don't see how someone getting 15 minutes of fame in a newspaper article make someone notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Operation Spooner (talk)
NYT etc are reliable sources. On Wikipedia, if something has had non-trivial coverage (i.e. more than a passing mention) in multiple reliable sources, that means they are notable enough for an article. Skomorokh

Jesus Christ! Do you guys have anything better to do than to argue about this arcane changes to an entry? This entry about little ole me is already too long, compared to most Wikipedia biographical entries. It's even stranger to read a section about my "thought" that emphasizes things that are pretty minor in terms of what I've written over the years. The stuff here about what I think about anarcho-capitalism is taken out of context. The recent changes consitute original research by a person who is simply using this entry to express their personal opinions about me.

At least somebody pointed out that this entry has survived two notability votes. I guess people have documented that I am indeed "notable" according to Wikipedia standards. I'm just wondering where the trophy is. Spooner should understand that several major newspapers have profiled me as a notable anarchist. That's different than being interviewed--I've been interviewed by a variety of media outlets. Don't see why any of this is relevant. The whol point of Wikipedia is to create a democratic encyclopedia. What's the point of Wikipedia if it isn't going to cover notable people in their fields?

It's also amusing to find out that I don't qualify as a de Cleyrist. I know what an anarchist without adjectives is. Do you really think that I've been an anarchist for more than 20 years and don't understand the concept? The whole point of anarchism without adjectives is that sectarian labeling within anarchism just isn't that important. That doesn't mean that an anarchist without adjectives doesn't hold some opinions about where the limits of anarchism lie. An anarchist without adjectives is usually anti-sectarian, but obviously there are some things that aren't anarchism. Chuck0 (talk) 07:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Jesus Christ! Do you guys have anything better to do than to argue about this arcane changes to an entry?" No, it gives us intense pleasure to debate the minutiae of some obscure policy on a website that is the anal-retentive's paradise; it is where the socially inadequate, particular-to-the-point-of-autism, power-hungry nerds get revenge on the world after a lifetime of persecution by getting to define The Truthtm. Go have a beer or talk to females or something, let us have our fun. ;) Skomorokh 14:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Funny. Chuck0 (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
You're not an anarchist without adjectives. You're just twisting the meaning of the term. Operation Spooner (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion, but I know what my politics are. I've identified as an anarchist without adjectives since the 1980s. I know what it means. You don't. I know that you are annoyed with things I've said about anarcho-capitalism, but you should know that I've mellowed a bunch on that topic in the past year. This isn't the place to pick arguments with me or otherwise engage in discussions. Chuck0 (talk) 03:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)