This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Intellectual dark web article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
The introduction at the top of the main page does not make sense and cites no sources. IDW is characterized there by "some" of its members being opposed to certain popular ideologies. The views of those associated with IDW are nuanced and critical to the simplistic ones. In general, long-form conversations are required to flesh out their views. And those views vary a lot from person to person in the poorly defined IDW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.67.222.93 ( talk) 17:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
This is pretty significant nowadays. I think that we should have a template describing what this is, and putting it on "member" pages. Socratesone ( talk) 22:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
"Demonized as right wing," is so far off WP:NPOV that I'd be challenging that construction even if it wasn't presented in Wikipedia's voice. Please adhere to neutral point of view. And anyway, anybody who knows internet neologisms knows all the top-shelf extreme left content gets lumped in with leftbook; IDW is the right-wing extreme. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Please tell me why this shouldn't be AfD'd under WP:TOOSOON? Simonm223 ( talk) 17:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
( edit conflict)The NYT article is explicitly an opinion piece. Frankly, I found three opinion articles that did explicitly link IDW to the Dark Enlightenment; I discarded them because opinion columns have no place as RSes in Wikipedia. The NYT article cannot be used as anything but a reliable statement of Bari Weiss' opinion on who is part of the Intellectual Dark Web, and I consider her opinion WP:UNDUE inclusion on the basis she has no expertise in any of the topics surrounding this outcropping of Youtube. Simonm223 ( talk) 20:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I haven't had a chance to review all the academic sources from the WP:FRINGE/N thread thoroughly. But I did manage one for the Jonathan Murphy article.
First the journal, Studies in Arts and Humanities is unrated by WorldCat and not listed in Research Gate or Scimagojr at all. Not a good start. The author himself brags in his bio of being an early international member of Heterodox Academy so we're already in WP:FRINGE territory a little bit just there. Another warning sign is that this article, purportedly on philosophy of education and political science was penned by a researcher who, "has a PhD in psychology from NUI Maynooth for research on spatial representation and object-location memory." So he's writing outside his area of expertise. He's not an amazing researcher, with an h-index of 4 and an i10-index of 2. So all in all we have an obscure researcher working outside of his area of specialty in a manner consistent with participation in a fringe advocacy group he advertises membership in and writing in a journal that is not rigorously or transparently reviewed [4]. In short, this is, at best, shoddy scholarship and at worst an example of what WP:FRINGE was designed to guard against. Simonm223 ( talk) 21:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
The term compares the IDW's opposition to mainstream opinion to what is illicitly found on the dark web. [1]
References
- ^ McCarter, Reid (2018-05-09). "The only thing to do with the "intellectual dark web" is laugh at it". News. Retrieved 2019-05-29.
This may be true, and may even be obviously true, but it's not entirely clear how reliable the The A.V. Club is on it's face. WP:RSPS seem to only endorse it for movie and tv reviews, which this really isn't. And to be totally honest, this piece is written so much like a rant from an over-caffeinated undergrad that I'm not sure I'm comfortable using it regardless. GMG talk 18:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I am concerned by the massive editing underway by an IP. Based on their edit summaries some of this appears to be based on persona disagreements with the text and or WP:OR. IMO this sort of major redacting and rewording is controversial and should be discussed first. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The LA review of books article is really really clear that this is not an ideosyncratic movement but rather one that is solely focused on attacking the left. Using it as a ref that says the opposite is inappropriate. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
A growing group of controversial(ist) liberal, libertarian and conservative online commentators and public 'intellectuals' ... They include authors, YouTube vloggers and podcasters ... as well as academics.Also note the scare quotes used for "intellectuals".
Another criticism would seemingly be that the term seems to be created by non-geeks thinking "dark web" sounds cool without bothering to learn what it means (silk road, Tor, illicit activities that may include payment via cryptocurrencies , etc). Might even make a geek cringe every time they hear it. I'll try to find a source.
2601:185:8201:198:7533:4C50:4A87:7F31 ( talk) 10:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Are we removing sources for some reason other than that they don't say what we would like them to say? GMG talk 14:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I fail to see how citations [7] and [8] support the claim they supposedly justify - that the so-called alt-right has "co-opted" the IDW. For starters, I've been paying attention for two years now and have yet to infer, let alone see or hear, a definition of "alt-right" with any internal consistency, or any discernible and consistent relationship with any of its members' qualities, whatsoever. IMO, this term is nothing more than a dog-whistling McCarthyist slur that debases the dignity of Wikipedia more than it damages the reputations of the people described. But enough of that.
Ignoring the statement itself, I fail to see how [7] supports a claim of co-opting because I couldn't find any such generalisations in the article. [8], on the other hand, relies for its line of argument on YouTube video titles written by third-party YT clippers as supposed proof of the attitudes and aims of IDW members themselves. This is such a transparent and mischievous piece of casuistry that its inclusion in the citations for any article is a disgrace to Wikipedia.
As this article now stands, I would support its deletion rather than set a precedent for this kind of politicised libel to be misrepresented as encyclopaedic content. 81.187.94.66 ( talk) 13:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
On reconsideration, the above conclusion is too strong and I apologise. The article's biggest problem is the shaky claims made in its introduction for links between the subject and the so-called "alt-right", and the two sources mentioned, which are each either schlock or irrelevant. In any case this intro is misleadingly at odds with the more proper tone of the article's body. 81.187.94.66 ( talk) 13:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
How can a page about the dark web accurately portray the source without referencing the subject directly? Sure they are not RS but that doesnt change the fact we are using the analysis of another entity to characterize the source instead of including any material from the source itself... It just seems a little asinine given the availability of so much material that would help improve this page. If we stick strictly to the guidelines it would result in a page that simply relates what mass media (which is a whole point of criticism from this group) thinks the group represents. Bgrus22 ( talk) 19:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Should this article have a link to the Pinkerite blog? I would assume that any relevant articles identified by that blog will be added to the body of the article directly. I'm not sure why we would need this link. I see it was removed then restored. [ [5]] Springee ( talk) 15:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked, either in the article or in citations.Simonm223 ( talk) 18:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
@ JzG and Connor Behan:, when was this content discussed via a RfC? [ [6]] If there was a RfC that said remove then we would have so show a new consensus was developed to keep it. Any reasonably attended RfC from just 4 months back should be considered a better representation of consensus vs an assumed consensus because a change wasn't actually implemented (unless the previous RfC resulted in a no-consensus). I see the material as problematic since it doesn't appear to be a humorous headline, not a claim that the IDW is... The fact that "alt-right" doesn't appear in the text would be problematic given how this source is used in the article. Springee ( talk) 17:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
You know, I think the problem here is that WP articles are supposed to be sourced from published factual information. This topic, however, due to its apparent politicization, is encouraging editors to instead try to source everything from published political opinions (e.g. "are the IDW alt-right?") as if they were factual... with the intent of fighting a kulturkampf on this page. This isn't how we do Wikipedia. So, given that, maybe this article needs to be expressly limited to:
1) What (factually) is the IDW,
2) Who is identified as a member of the IDW (including who self-identifies),
3) And *maybe* an illustration of the spectrum of opinion, not taking any one of them as anything more than what some guy says.
The article is pretty much in that sweet spot right now, I think. But the talk page is hinting at very un-Wikipedian intent bubbling beneath the surface with a few editors, so I think an express agreement to remain entirely factual is in order from everyone participating. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 13:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I saw a user from the IDW subreddit make an edit to this page (to whom I can not prove actually made the change, but the two events seem related)
If you look at these compared revisions from the user IntellectualDarkTrance
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Intellectual_dark_web&type=revision&diff=919469155&oldid=917846719
I am under the impression that this user wanted to change the wording of this paragraph in order to downplay the IDW community's correlation with the alt right, despite the fact that the referenced study came to a different conclusion. This user even took a small quotation from section 6 of the study that appears to downplay the correlation, despite the whole of the study coming to a different conclusion.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1908.08313.pdf
If you look at the discussion of this study in question (section 8) it's clear that the authors came to the conclusion that there is indeed a growing correlation between the communities IDW, alt-lite, and alt-right. It doesn't say that every person that consumes IDW content becomes an alt-righter, but it does clearly show that alt-righters do consume IDW content at a greater rate than the control content, and the correlation has grown over time. In conclusion, I think the edits done by the user IntellectualDarkTrance are fairly dishonest and ought to be reverted.
share the same user base; that users consistently migrate from milder to more extreme content; and that a large percentage of users who consume Alt-right content now consumed Alt-lite and I.D.W. content in the past."
new users but that there is significant user migration among the communities being studied. Users that initially comment only on content from the I.D.W. or the Alt-lite throughout the years consistently start to comment on Alt-right content. These users are a significant fraction of the Alt-right commenting user base. Interestingly, although control channels share, on a yearly basis, a significant number of users with Alt-right channels, we cannot observe significant user migration from them to Alt-right channels (Sec. 6)."
among the I.D.W., the Alt-lite, and the Alt-right are increasingly similar —and the effect is stronger than for control channels. This indicates that there is a growing percentage of users consuming extreme (Alt-right) content on YouTube while also consuming content from other milder communities (Alt-lite/I.D.W.). Yet, it does not, per se, indicate that there is a radicalization pipeline in the website."
more extreme content, We find that the commenting user bases for the three communities are increasingly similar (Sec. 5), and, considering Alt-right channels as a proxy for extreme content, that a significant amount of commenting users systematically migrates from commenting exclusively on milder content to commenting on more extreme content (Sec. 7).We argue that this finding comprises significant evidence that there has been, and there continues to be, user radicalization on YouTube, and our analyses of the activity of these communities (Sec. 4) is consistent with the theory that more extreme content "piggybacked" the surge in popularity of I.D.W. and Alt-lite content."
lays in the engagement of their users. users. The number of comments per view seems to be particularly high for extreme content (Sec. 4), and users in all three communities are more assiduous commentators than in the control group (Sec. 5)."
chance that the user has found at least one Alt-lite channel. Starting from the Control channels, reachability@5 of I.D.W. channels is of 2.5%, and of slightly less than 1% for Alt-lite channels. For video recommendations, reaching Alt-right channels from other communities is less likely. be seen on the bottom row of Fig. 5 (a)."
P.S. I think it's better to have a link to a secondary source, because linking to the study leads to cherry picking and endless disputes on the Talk page. That's why summarizing the summary of the study by the Rolling Stones is a better than refering directly to the study. -- Where be me spice ( talk) 10:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Hey, placing the history of political thought and intellectual history, seems like a stretch here. To me, in a way, it seems like marketing. I have read many of the thinkers and find them all notable and interesting. But associating a metaphor (IDW) coined by one thinker that includes about ~10 people to this history of political thought and intellectual history... seems like such a far stretch it makes me giggle. Vote to rm. Unsigned, editing anonymously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:14c5:82e5:4134:1341:9f2f:478e ( talk) 17:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Calling this a neologism doesn't seem neutral to me. It's not neologism in the sense of, for instance, "meatspace". It might have some similarities to "broicism" or "Manosphere" both in designating the type of people involved and in that it's a new term informally used by some people, disdained by others, and often disowned by people who are labeled as members. However, unlike broicism and manosphere, this is neither two words made into one, nor does it contain a new word not yet found in a dictionary. Nor is it a phrase used in a unique way, ie "I'm not here for that." or "This!" IDW doesn't count as "neo" because there is nothing new about any of the three words. Only their combination. That's just a name, not a new phrase. "The women who play cards at Kate's house" is not a neologism. Nor is "The East Side Rascals." It may be odd that anyone on the East Side is being called a "rascal' but it's not a neologism. It's just a name for a group, wether they or anyone else likes it. If you don't like the term, please nominate for deletion. Failing that, we have at least 10 WP:RS using the term. When people come to this article they should get a neutral description of what it is. DolyaIskrina ( talk) 17:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Newimpartial: Per MOS:FIRST, the first sentence should say what the subject actually is first. It doesn’t make sense to talk about its history before defining it. — MarkH21 talk 18:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
The term refers to.... I’m not saying anything about the actual definition there, but that the first sentence should be whatever definition is agree upon. The current ordering is way too much emphasis on the origin / popularization and against the MOS. — MarkH21 talk 20:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Proposed text:
The intellectual dark web (IDW) is an informal group of pundits who oppose what they believe to be the dominance of identity politics and political correctness in academia and the media. The term metaphorically compares opposition to mainstream opinion to what is illicitly found on the dark web. The term is ascribed to American venture capital director Eric Weinstein and was popularized in a 2018 editorial by Bari Weiss." DolyaIskrina ( talk) 01:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
...is a term used to denote an informal group...possibly with
self-referentialin there, as the term seems to be used by the group itself. — MarkH21 talk 01:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
So I think we are all okay with the modified proposed text using term
? i.e. just changing the beginning to
Intellectual dark web (IDW) is self-referential term used by denote an informal group of pundits who...
self-referential
seems appropriate here, since the sources suggest that it is used by people claiming to belong to the group to refer to themselves. —
MarkH21
talk
20:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Can someone explain the rationale to categorize this page as Anti-intellectualism? The fact that the title starts with the word "Intellectual" makes this very misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdistefano ( talk • contribs) 21:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
An article in
Ozy Magazine by its senior politics reporter says But those early steps served as the ideological inspiration behind the so-called “Intellectual Dark Web,” a growing school of thought that includes a collection of mostly left-leaning professors, pundits and thinkers united in their criticism of the modern social justice movement as authoritarian and illogical.
(The article is also about a book I'm doing an article on, that's how I found my way here.) Seeing the back-and-forth in the "Associated individuals" section with its mentions of "alt-right", I wondered whether this differing description should be added or not.
Schazjmd
(talk)
22:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't believe any source about or member of the IDW has named him as a member. But I might be wrong. Please provide a source OR let us agree that he should be deleted from this page. I do see that some members of the IDW were upset by him being canceled by Patreon, but that is not the same as him being a member. Yes, I know that membership in the IDW is a nebulous concept, but I think even by those hazy rules, he doesn't qualify. So let's find those WP:RS or cut himn. Thanks DolyaIskrina ( talk) 22:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
References
"Intellectual Dark Web," a growing school of thought that includes a collection of mostly left-leaning professors, pundits and thinkers united in their criticism of the modern social justice movement as authoritarian and illogical.
Proposed Revision to Introduction and Origin and Usage section to reflect that: The term was coined by Eric Weinstein and articulated in a January 2018 article by Jacob Kishere. [1] It was further popularised in a May 2018 editorial by Bari Weiss. [2]
Basis for Amendment: On January 18th 2018 I published the first article characterising the Intellectual Dark web and framing it. The piece was published on Conatus News now 'Uncommon Ground Media'. As shown below it received rapid Recirculation by Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan on Twitter causing widespread readership. Later in February 2018 British Journalist Douglas Murray published a very similar framing and following that in May 2018 Bari Weiss of the NYT wrote a full editorial.
Jordan Peterson, Article Share Jan 19th 2018 : https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/954251546010660864?lang=en
Joe Rogan Article Share Jan 21st 2018: https://twitter.com/joerogan/status/955339364518707201?lang=en
Jacob Kishere, Conatus/UncommonGround, Jan 18th 2018 https://uncommongroundmedia.com/rise-intellectual-dark-web/
Douglas Murray, Spectator, Feb 21st 2018: ( Spectator
Bari Weiss, NYT, May 8th 2018 ( [7].
My Conflict of Interest: I am seeking clarification of Wikipedia's record of my own role in the Intellectual Dark Web's historical development.
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
@ Struthious Bandersnatch:, this recently added/challenged material [ [8]] is both UNDUE and synthesis. Additionally, the way the SPLC is used as a primary source is a RS problem. The material is UNDUE since it appears that the only person to mention this is Darryl G. Hart who is the author of the cited work. That effectively makes it a primary vs secondary source. Absent others discussing this claim why would it be DUE for this article? Even if Hart wasn't the author, again, why is it due that one person says, group X should be part of the IDW because they do something similar to other members of the IDW? That connection is tenuous at best. It's synthesis because you haven't shown that the source that links the Mencken Writing Club to the IDW also links them to the white nationalist claims of the SLPC. Finally, the SPLC is effectively an opinion source when saying "Group X is a Y" Since the SLPC is a primary source you need a secondary source to talk about "the SLPC says Group X is a Y". Overall this tells the reader very little about the IDW itself. I mean, assuming this stays, what does this say about the IDW vs what it says about the Mencken Club. Springee ( talk) 12:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
explicit questioning of mainstream politics, not to indicate that a single source is making both statements.But an UNDUE/ WP:PROPORTION type objection seems much more valid to me, since while this is genuinely illustrative of the reception of the existence of the IDW, it's an exonym sort of characterization rather than a self-identification on the part of the Mencken Club, and you're correct to observe Schazjmd that Hart's intent isn't to characterize the IDW overall.So, either of you, feel free to delete the entire paragraph. Thank you for seeking consensus here on the article talk page, Springee. -- ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 16:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
This seems to be based almost entirely, and is almost verbatim, from the following section:
The original source for this was some random podcast. Over time, and several edits, this was removed, the original source obscured, without the text being challenged or altered. I would guess that people saw the references following it, and just assumed this was supported by those, without checking. Even then, some of the information that was originally in the article and supported by those sources (like Psychology Today) was truncated in the intervening edits.
* (P.S., I have no idea why I thought the template ping in the edit summary would work with a sig, and why I didn't just use the user page mention instead, so I'll just ping you now, Springee. I was trying to let you know I altered the comment to add an indentation mark to your reply, after I had copy-edited the first post. Since that's a courtesy that's supposed to be observed if there's any alteration to another's comment.) Symmachus Auxiliarus ( talk) 19:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
In Associated individuals you can see that Heying is connected to a mention of her on the Evergreen page. I believe this is an inconsistency since the rest of individuals are connected to their individual pages.(I didn't know how to fix it because of the Transclusion if you agree with me please do) -- FH24 ( talk) 08:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)FH24
The lede says The intellectual dark web (IDW) is an informal group of philosophers …
but the term is not used elsewhere in the article. I might say "commentators", "writers", or even "thinkers"; "philosophers", unless there is consensus among RS that this is the appropriate term, seems inflated.
AleatoryPonderings (
???) (
!!!)
06:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Joe Rogan is considered part of the IDW? By whom? Someone kicked in the head by a horse multiple times??? Apeholder ( talk) 02:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
It appears that the list of people associated with the IDW are based on an Op-Ed piece which includes a link to a dead website: http://intellectualdark.website/. I'm 100% sure that website is not a reliable source, and describing intellectual associations of people based on an op-ed regurgitation of that content does not satisfy WP:BLP. From the op-ed:
The closest thing to a phone book for the I.D.W. is a sleek website that lists the dramatis personae of the network ...
My suggestion would be to include actual reliable sources for people who have self-affiliated with the group, instead of relying on dubiously sourced information. In the meantime, I've made it clearer that this list is being sourced from Opinion. 99.152.115.208 ( talk) 15:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Weird. >>> Just a normal reader a little confused, here.
The majority of the intellectual dark web members are liberal leaning. Wikipedia lists the major figures as
Of these 17, only Murray, Sommers, Shapiro, and Peterson are conservative, while Rubin is libertarian. Moreover, there are no truly far-right intellectuals (e.g, Patrick Deneen, Sohrab Ahamri) in the intellectual dark web. Yet the article makes the IDW seem like a right-wing movement. This article needs to be more balanced. ( talk • contribs) 17:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC) Island Pelican ( talk) 19:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Island Pelican ( talk) 19:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I've removed several instances of leading language, but this article really is littered with them.
For instance, from the lead, I just removed "The term, which metaphorically compared opposition to mainstream opinion to what is illicitly found on the dark web, was not originally intended to be wholly serious". This is implying that the name itself is a
False equivalence through the contrast of "mainstream opinion" vs "illicit". Whether or not that's the case, it's not backed up by any of the sources in this article so is
WP:UNDUE. There are many other instances of this. I've attached an NPOV template until these issues can be resolved.
BrigadierG (
talk)
18:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I had never heard of the "intellectual dark web" until I saw a mention in another article of someone who was supposedly in it but left. "Huh?" I thought, "the dark web is where illicit stuff is posted. What’s the intellectual dark web? Somewhere where people openly justify issues such as child molestation?"
The creator of the term has, basically, tried to do a nut job on right-leaning thinkers by labelling them with his made up derogatory term. Because there’s nothing illegitimate about having right wing views. All Wikipedians should strive to maintain that consideration, and if they don’t, then they cannot be adhering to NPOV and should not be editing at all. But because that nut job article was in the New York Times, and because current affairs issues on Wikipedia appear to be overseen and worked primarily by those who do their utmost to label any right wing news source as unreliable, we now have an article giving this nut job derogatory term legitimacy. The article should be deleted, and soon. Boscaswell talk 04:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
As far as I can tell from the sources used in the article, members of the "IDW" are largely only "left" within the narrow scope of contemporary American politics. Beyond that scope, it seems very odd indeed to characterize them as "left" rather than "center". Re-framing them as more of a rightwing and centrist collection of figures would, insofar as I can tell, more easily clarify their views, which are primarily critical of what they themselves call "the left". Comrade GC ( talk) 17:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
The only two sources to suggest that the IDW extends left of the center-line of politics at all are the Hamburger piece and the National Review. And the Hamburger source is being grossly misrepresented as it clearly declares the IDW as right-wing. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Bari Weiss, Sam Harris, Steven Pinker or Bill Maher aren't particularly pro-capitalist
Aside from Ben Shapiro, who calls himself a “sometimes Trump” Republican, it is hard to find a member of this movement who identifies in any respect with the American conservative movement of the last half-century (Jordan Peterson occasionally calls himself a conservative, but as a Canadian, he can plausibly distance himself from the GOP). Cultural liberals for the most part, they have little interest in reviving the conservative polemic against the 1960s. There is little reason to think that Sam Harris and the TV host Bill Maher — outspoken atheists who often promote drug use — seek a return to “family values” traditionalism.
although he doesn't name names I think we both know that it's Sam Harris
and as for Jordan Peterson I think the consensus on his political position (far right) has solidified since 2018. I would be willing to accept a statement saying Hamburger claims Bill Maher, Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson are examples of non-right-wing participants but acording to (RS), (RS) (RS) (RS) they are, in fact, conservatives. Simonm223 ( talk) 13:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Those who have been labelled as being part of the IDW come from both the right and left
No, they do not. User:Jweiss11 claimed that "Harris, Weinstein, and Weinstein" are on the left. There is zero evidence for that claim. Harris is a so-called "enlightened centrist" who has literally spent the entirety of his podcast career denigrating the American left. Calling him a leftist is nothing but prevarication. Harris is a critic of Trump, but that doesn't make him a leftist.
Bret Weinstein says he supported Bernie Sanders and Occupy, but neither of those are exclusively "leftist" positions. Sanders picked up a huge number of people on the right after speaking at Liberty University (some right-wing Christian evangelicals see Sanders has adhering to some aspects of Christian socialism which has adherents on the right). Further Sanders attracts populist support in general, leading many on the left to believe that Sanders could have beat Trump in 2016 due to this populist appeal on the right. Of course, the DNC strongly disagreed, given their right-wing donors.
Occupy wasn't a leftist movement per se, but a recognition that the working class was getting screwed. Again, that's not a particularly "leftist" position, it's a populist one. Brett says "I have been on the left my entire adult life", and yet he has spent the last five years promoting himself on right-wing media and pushing right-wing talking points. This particular phenomenon is often described as conspirituality, a merging of left and right ideas, causes, memes, and concepts; not quite left and not quite right. Finally, Brett has said that his current set of beliefs and values are best described as center-right in the current climate.
Eric Weinstein spent almost a decade working for the arch right wing figure Peter Thiel. It is unlikely that anyone on the left would ever work for Thiel, no matter how much he would pay. Like his brother, Eric has spent the last five years promoting himself on right wing media and pushing right wing ideas. Like his brother, he is best defined as center-right.
That leaves nobody on the left who can be described as a member of the IDW. Viriditas ( talk) 07:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Why is Lex Fridman included in the associated individuals list? He is not mentioned in the cited source. 2001:999:588:1F65:E5DE:C006:D053:AEE7 ( talk) 18:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi, this is my first ever post on Wikipedia after decades of use, I have just heard this term "intellectual dark web" and came here looking for explanation. The first line says this "is a term used by some commentators who oppose". This is problematic because they could be describing themselves or others. I am genuinely confused. I have done some research (as someone who has JUST heard this term) and it seems (but I could be mistaken) that either of the above terms are generally wrong? Because it seems (again I could be wrong) that this term isn't generally used by people to describe themselves as the I.D.W. For example Shapiro doesn't call himself this as far as I can tell. So it seems that the first line is very misleading... should it say this instead "is a term used to describe some commentators who oppose"? If it did say this then people would look at the names on the list like Shapiros and come to the conclusion that others describe him as this, which if I understand this term correctly... would be the correct interpretation? Thanks, Matt. MatthewMachinist ( talk) 08:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
@ GreenMeansGo: I see you added some content sourced to Unherd in 2001 with a quote from David Rubin, but you ended the quote in strange place that could leave the reader either dumbfounded as to the meaning of the quote or give the false impression that Rubin think that merely employing tools of liberalism in general is a fatal mistake. The fuller quote is "They've made what to me seems to be a very obvious fatal mistake, that you can use any of the tools of Liberalism — of open inquiry, freedom of speech, respect for your fellow human beings, individual rights — that you can use any of these things to rationalise with the monster that is coming to burn your house down. And that's why we've seen in effect the liberals have no defence over this, which is why all the liberal institutions are crumbling." His point is about dealing with those that everyone in the IDW would agree are left of liberal. Jweiss11 ( talk) 13:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
hello,
what does it take in Feb 2024 to demonstrate that none of those who were in this grouping identifies with this grouping any more, if they ever did? do we trust outside sources? (There are probably none insisting on grouping these people together under this name since 2021.) Do we trust the identified members themselves? If so, how can we find a source that says that none of these people identify with this label now? Do we have to find a source for each member, do demonstrate that they don't belong?
I think the term IDW is fine as term that had some salience for a few years. And we can state who belonged to the group for that period. (I guess from 2018-2021.)
skak E L 14:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Intellectual dark web article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
The introduction at the top of the main page does not make sense and cites no sources. IDW is characterized there by "some" of its members being opposed to certain popular ideologies. The views of those associated with IDW are nuanced and critical to the simplistic ones. In general, long-form conversations are required to flesh out their views. And those views vary a lot from person to person in the poorly defined IDW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.67.222.93 ( talk) 17:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
This is pretty significant nowadays. I think that we should have a template describing what this is, and putting it on "member" pages. Socratesone ( talk) 22:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
"Demonized as right wing," is so far off WP:NPOV that I'd be challenging that construction even if it wasn't presented in Wikipedia's voice. Please adhere to neutral point of view. And anyway, anybody who knows internet neologisms knows all the top-shelf extreme left content gets lumped in with leftbook; IDW is the right-wing extreme. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Please tell me why this shouldn't be AfD'd under WP:TOOSOON? Simonm223 ( talk) 17:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
( edit conflict)The NYT article is explicitly an opinion piece. Frankly, I found three opinion articles that did explicitly link IDW to the Dark Enlightenment; I discarded them because opinion columns have no place as RSes in Wikipedia. The NYT article cannot be used as anything but a reliable statement of Bari Weiss' opinion on who is part of the Intellectual Dark Web, and I consider her opinion WP:UNDUE inclusion on the basis she has no expertise in any of the topics surrounding this outcropping of Youtube. Simonm223 ( talk) 20:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I haven't had a chance to review all the academic sources from the WP:FRINGE/N thread thoroughly. But I did manage one for the Jonathan Murphy article.
First the journal, Studies in Arts and Humanities is unrated by WorldCat and not listed in Research Gate or Scimagojr at all. Not a good start. The author himself brags in his bio of being an early international member of Heterodox Academy so we're already in WP:FRINGE territory a little bit just there. Another warning sign is that this article, purportedly on philosophy of education and political science was penned by a researcher who, "has a PhD in psychology from NUI Maynooth for research on spatial representation and object-location memory." So he's writing outside his area of expertise. He's not an amazing researcher, with an h-index of 4 and an i10-index of 2. So all in all we have an obscure researcher working outside of his area of specialty in a manner consistent with participation in a fringe advocacy group he advertises membership in and writing in a journal that is not rigorously or transparently reviewed [4]. In short, this is, at best, shoddy scholarship and at worst an example of what WP:FRINGE was designed to guard against. Simonm223 ( talk) 21:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
The term compares the IDW's opposition to mainstream opinion to what is illicitly found on the dark web. [1]
References
- ^ McCarter, Reid (2018-05-09). "The only thing to do with the "intellectual dark web" is laugh at it". News. Retrieved 2019-05-29.
This may be true, and may even be obviously true, but it's not entirely clear how reliable the The A.V. Club is on it's face. WP:RSPS seem to only endorse it for movie and tv reviews, which this really isn't. And to be totally honest, this piece is written so much like a rant from an over-caffeinated undergrad that I'm not sure I'm comfortable using it regardless. GMG talk 18:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I am concerned by the massive editing underway by an IP. Based on their edit summaries some of this appears to be based on persona disagreements with the text and or WP:OR. IMO this sort of major redacting and rewording is controversial and should be discussed first. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The LA review of books article is really really clear that this is not an ideosyncratic movement but rather one that is solely focused on attacking the left. Using it as a ref that says the opposite is inappropriate. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
A growing group of controversial(ist) liberal, libertarian and conservative online commentators and public 'intellectuals' ... They include authors, YouTube vloggers and podcasters ... as well as academics.Also note the scare quotes used for "intellectuals".
Another criticism would seemingly be that the term seems to be created by non-geeks thinking "dark web" sounds cool without bothering to learn what it means (silk road, Tor, illicit activities that may include payment via cryptocurrencies , etc). Might even make a geek cringe every time they hear it. I'll try to find a source.
2601:185:8201:198:7533:4C50:4A87:7F31 ( talk) 10:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Are we removing sources for some reason other than that they don't say what we would like them to say? GMG talk 14:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I fail to see how citations [7] and [8] support the claim they supposedly justify - that the so-called alt-right has "co-opted" the IDW. For starters, I've been paying attention for two years now and have yet to infer, let alone see or hear, a definition of "alt-right" with any internal consistency, or any discernible and consistent relationship with any of its members' qualities, whatsoever. IMO, this term is nothing more than a dog-whistling McCarthyist slur that debases the dignity of Wikipedia more than it damages the reputations of the people described. But enough of that.
Ignoring the statement itself, I fail to see how [7] supports a claim of co-opting because I couldn't find any such generalisations in the article. [8], on the other hand, relies for its line of argument on YouTube video titles written by third-party YT clippers as supposed proof of the attitudes and aims of IDW members themselves. This is such a transparent and mischievous piece of casuistry that its inclusion in the citations for any article is a disgrace to Wikipedia.
As this article now stands, I would support its deletion rather than set a precedent for this kind of politicised libel to be misrepresented as encyclopaedic content. 81.187.94.66 ( talk) 13:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
On reconsideration, the above conclusion is too strong and I apologise. The article's biggest problem is the shaky claims made in its introduction for links between the subject and the so-called "alt-right", and the two sources mentioned, which are each either schlock or irrelevant. In any case this intro is misleadingly at odds with the more proper tone of the article's body. 81.187.94.66 ( talk) 13:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
How can a page about the dark web accurately portray the source without referencing the subject directly? Sure they are not RS but that doesnt change the fact we are using the analysis of another entity to characterize the source instead of including any material from the source itself... It just seems a little asinine given the availability of so much material that would help improve this page. If we stick strictly to the guidelines it would result in a page that simply relates what mass media (which is a whole point of criticism from this group) thinks the group represents. Bgrus22 ( talk) 19:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Should this article have a link to the Pinkerite blog? I would assume that any relevant articles identified by that blog will be added to the body of the article directly. I'm not sure why we would need this link. I see it was removed then restored. [ [5]] Springee ( talk) 15:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked, either in the article or in citations.Simonm223 ( talk) 18:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
@ JzG and Connor Behan:, when was this content discussed via a RfC? [ [6]] If there was a RfC that said remove then we would have so show a new consensus was developed to keep it. Any reasonably attended RfC from just 4 months back should be considered a better representation of consensus vs an assumed consensus because a change wasn't actually implemented (unless the previous RfC resulted in a no-consensus). I see the material as problematic since it doesn't appear to be a humorous headline, not a claim that the IDW is... The fact that "alt-right" doesn't appear in the text would be problematic given how this source is used in the article. Springee ( talk) 17:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
You know, I think the problem here is that WP articles are supposed to be sourced from published factual information. This topic, however, due to its apparent politicization, is encouraging editors to instead try to source everything from published political opinions (e.g. "are the IDW alt-right?") as if they were factual... with the intent of fighting a kulturkampf on this page. This isn't how we do Wikipedia. So, given that, maybe this article needs to be expressly limited to:
1) What (factually) is the IDW,
2) Who is identified as a member of the IDW (including who self-identifies),
3) And *maybe* an illustration of the spectrum of opinion, not taking any one of them as anything more than what some guy says.
The article is pretty much in that sweet spot right now, I think. But the talk page is hinting at very un-Wikipedian intent bubbling beneath the surface with a few editors, so I think an express agreement to remain entirely factual is in order from everyone participating. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 13:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I saw a user from the IDW subreddit make an edit to this page (to whom I can not prove actually made the change, but the two events seem related)
If you look at these compared revisions from the user IntellectualDarkTrance
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Intellectual_dark_web&type=revision&diff=919469155&oldid=917846719
I am under the impression that this user wanted to change the wording of this paragraph in order to downplay the IDW community's correlation with the alt right, despite the fact that the referenced study came to a different conclusion. This user even took a small quotation from section 6 of the study that appears to downplay the correlation, despite the whole of the study coming to a different conclusion.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1908.08313.pdf
If you look at the discussion of this study in question (section 8) it's clear that the authors came to the conclusion that there is indeed a growing correlation between the communities IDW, alt-lite, and alt-right. It doesn't say that every person that consumes IDW content becomes an alt-righter, but it does clearly show that alt-righters do consume IDW content at a greater rate than the control content, and the correlation has grown over time. In conclusion, I think the edits done by the user IntellectualDarkTrance are fairly dishonest and ought to be reverted.
share the same user base; that users consistently migrate from milder to more extreme content; and that a large percentage of users who consume Alt-right content now consumed Alt-lite and I.D.W. content in the past."
new users but that there is significant user migration among the communities being studied. Users that initially comment only on content from the I.D.W. or the Alt-lite throughout the years consistently start to comment on Alt-right content. These users are a significant fraction of the Alt-right commenting user base. Interestingly, although control channels share, on a yearly basis, a significant number of users with Alt-right channels, we cannot observe significant user migration from them to Alt-right channels (Sec. 6)."
among the I.D.W., the Alt-lite, and the Alt-right are increasingly similar —and the effect is stronger than for control channels. This indicates that there is a growing percentage of users consuming extreme (Alt-right) content on YouTube while also consuming content from other milder communities (Alt-lite/I.D.W.). Yet, it does not, per se, indicate that there is a radicalization pipeline in the website."
more extreme content, We find that the commenting user bases for the three communities are increasingly similar (Sec. 5), and, considering Alt-right channels as a proxy for extreme content, that a significant amount of commenting users systematically migrates from commenting exclusively on milder content to commenting on more extreme content (Sec. 7).We argue that this finding comprises significant evidence that there has been, and there continues to be, user radicalization on YouTube, and our analyses of the activity of these communities (Sec. 4) is consistent with the theory that more extreme content "piggybacked" the surge in popularity of I.D.W. and Alt-lite content."
lays in the engagement of their users. users. The number of comments per view seems to be particularly high for extreme content (Sec. 4), and users in all three communities are more assiduous commentators than in the control group (Sec. 5)."
chance that the user has found at least one Alt-lite channel. Starting from the Control channels, reachability@5 of I.D.W. channels is of 2.5%, and of slightly less than 1% for Alt-lite channels. For video recommendations, reaching Alt-right channels from other communities is less likely. be seen on the bottom row of Fig. 5 (a)."
P.S. I think it's better to have a link to a secondary source, because linking to the study leads to cherry picking and endless disputes on the Talk page. That's why summarizing the summary of the study by the Rolling Stones is a better than refering directly to the study. -- Where be me spice ( talk) 10:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Hey, placing the history of political thought and intellectual history, seems like a stretch here. To me, in a way, it seems like marketing. I have read many of the thinkers and find them all notable and interesting. But associating a metaphor (IDW) coined by one thinker that includes about ~10 people to this history of political thought and intellectual history... seems like such a far stretch it makes me giggle. Vote to rm. Unsigned, editing anonymously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:14c5:82e5:4134:1341:9f2f:478e ( talk) 17:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Calling this a neologism doesn't seem neutral to me. It's not neologism in the sense of, for instance, "meatspace". It might have some similarities to "broicism" or "Manosphere" both in designating the type of people involved and in that it's a new term informally used by some people, disdained by others, and often disowned by people who are labeled as members. However, unlike broicism and manosphere, this is neither two words made into one, nor does it contain a new word not yet found in a dictionary. Nor is it a phrase used in a unique way, ie "I'm not here for that." or "This!" IDW doesn't count as "neo" because there is nothing new about any of the three words. Only their combination. That's just a name, not a new phrase. "The women who play cards at Kate's house" is not a neologism. Nor is "The East Side Rascals." It may be odd that anyone on the East Side is being called a "rascal' but it's not a neologism. It's just a name for a group, wether they or anyone else likes it. If you don't like the term, please nominate for deletion. Failing that, we have at least 10 WP:RS using the term. When people come to this article they should get a neutral description of what it is. DolyaIskrina ( talk) 17:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Newimpartial: Per MOS:FIRST, the first sentence should say what the subject actually is first. It doesn’t make sense to talk about its history before defining it. — MarkH21 talk 18:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
The term refers to.... I’m not saying anything about the actual definition there, but that the first sentence should be whatever definition is agree upon. The current ordering is way too much emphasis on the origin / popularization and against the MOS. — MarkH21 talk 20:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Proposed text:
The intellectual dark web (IDW) is an informal group of pundits who oppose what they believe to be the dominance of identity politics and political correctness in academia and the media. The term metaphorically compares opposition to mainstream opinion to what is illicitly found on the dark web. The term is ascribed to American venture capital director Eric Weinstein and was popularized in a 2018 editorial by Bari Weiss." DolyaIskrina ( talk) 01:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
...is a term used to denote an informal group...possibly with
self-referentialin there, as the term seems to be used by the group itself. — MarkH21 talk 01:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
So I think we are all okay with the modified proposed text using term
? i.e. just changing the beginning to
Intellectual dark web (IDW) is self-referential term used by denote an informal group of pundits who...
self-referential
seems appropriate here, since the sources suggest that it is used by people claiming to belong to the group to refer to themselves. —
MarkH21
talk
20:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Can someone explain the rationale to categorize this page as Anti-intellectualism? The fact that the title starts with the word "Intellectual" makes this very misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdistefano ( talk • contribs) 21:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
An article in
Ozy Magazine by its senior politics reporter says But those early steps served as the ideological inspiration behind the so-called “Intellectual Dark Web,” a growing school of thought that includes a collection of mostly left-leaning professors, pundits and thinkers united in their criticism of the modern social justice movement as authoritarian and illogical.
(The article is also about a book I'm doing an article on, that's how I found my way here.) Seeing the back-and-forth in the "Associated individuals" section with its mentions of "alt-right", I wondered whether this differing description should be added or not.
Schazjmd
(talk)
22:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't believe any source about or member of the IDW has named him as a member. But I might be wrong. Please provide a source OR let us agree that he should be deleted from this page. I do see that some members of the IDW were upset by him being canceled by Patreon, but that is not the same as him being a member. Yes, I know that membership in the IDW is a nebulous concept, but I think even by those hazy rules, he doesn't qualify. So let's find those WP:RS or cut himn. Thanks DolyaIskrina ( talk) 22:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
References
"Intellectual Dark Web," a growing school of thought that includes a collection of mostly left-leaning professors, pundits and thinkers united in their criticism of the modern social justice movement as authoritarian and illogical.
Proposed Revision to Introduction and Origin and Usage section to reflect that: The term was coined by Eric Weinstein and articulated in a January 2018 article by Jacob Kishere. [1] It was further popularised in a May 2018 editorial by Bari Weiss. [2]
Basis for Amendment: On January 18th 2018 I published the first article characterising the Intellectual Dark web and framing it. The piece was published on Conatus News now 'Uncommon Ground Media'. As shown below it received rapid Recirculation by Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan on Twitter causing widespread readership. Later in February 2018 British Journalist Douglas Murray published a very similar framing and following that in May 2018 Bari Weiss of the NYT wrote a full editorial.
Jordan Peterson, Article Share Jan 19th 2018 : https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/954251546010660864?lang=en
Joe Rogan Article Share Jan 21st 2018: https://twitter.com/joerogan/status/955339364518707201?lang=en
Jacob Kishere, Conatus/UncommonGround, Jan 18th 2018 https://uncommongroundmedia.com/rise-intellectual-dark-web/
Douglas Murray, Spectator, Feb 21st 2018: ( Spectator
Bari Weiss, NYT, May 8th 2018 ( [7].
My Conflict of Interest: I am seeking clarification of Wikipedia's record of my own role in the Intellectual Dark Web's historical development.
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
@ Struthious Bandersnatch:, this recently added/challenged material [ [8]] is both UNDUE and synthesis. Additionally, the way the SPLC is used as a primary source is a RS problem. The material is UNDUE since it appears that the only person to mention this is Darryl G. Hart who is the author of the cited work. That effectively makes it a primary vs secondary source. Absent others discussing this claim why would it be DUE for this article? Even if Hart wasn't the author, again, why is it due that one person says, group X should be part of the IDW because they do something similar to other members of the IDW? That connection is tenuous at best. It's synthesis because you haven't shown that the source that links the Mencken Writing Club to the IDW also links them to the white nationalist claims of the SLPC. Finally, the SPLC is effectively an opinion source when saying "Group X is a Y" Since the SLPC is a primary source you need a secondary source to talk about "the SLPC says Group X is a Y". Overall this tells the reader very little about the IDW itself. I mean, assuming this stays, what does this say about the IDW vs what it says about the Mencken Club. Springee ( talk) 12:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
explicit questioning of mainstream politics, not to indicate that a single source is making both statements.But an UNDUE/ WP:PROPORTION type objection seems much more valid to me, since while this is genuinely illustrative of the reception of the existence of the IDW, it's an exonym sort of characterization rather than a self-identification on the part of the Mencken Club, and you're correct to observe Schazjmd that Hart's intent isn't to characterize the IDW overall.So, either of you, feel free to delete the entire paragraph. Thank you for seeking consensus here on the article talk page, Springee. -- ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 16:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
This seems to be based almost entirely, and is almost verbatim, from the following section:
The original source for this was some random podcast. Over time, and several edits, this was removed, the original source obscured, without the text being challenged or altered. I would guess that people saw the references following it, and just assumed this was supported by those, without checking. Even then, some of the information that was originally in the article and supported by those sources (like Psychology Today) was truncated in the intervening edits.
* (P.S., I have no idea why I thought the template ping in the edit summary would work with a sig, and why I didn't just use the user page mention instead, so I'll just ping you now, Springee. I was trying to let you know I altered the comment to add an indentation mark to your reply, after I had copy-edited the first post. Since that's a courtesy that's supposed to be observed if there's any alteration to another's comment.) Symmachus Auxiliarus ( talk) 19:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
In Associated individuals you can see that Heying is connected to a mention of her on the Evergreen page. I believe this is an inconsistency since the rest of individuals are connected to their individual pages.(I didn't know how to fix it because of the Transclusion if you agree with me please do) -- FH24 ( talk) 08:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)FH24
The lede says The intellectual dark web (IDW) is an informal group of philosophers …
but the term is not used elsewhere in the article. I might say "commentators", "writers", or even "thinkers"; "philosophers", unless there is consensus among RS that this is the appropriate term, seems inflated.
AleatoryPonderings (
???) (
!!!)
06:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Joe Rogan is considered part of the IDW? By whom? Someone kicked in the head by a horse multiple times??? Apeholder ( talk) 02:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
It appears that the list of people associated with the IDW are based on an Op-Ed piece which includes a link to a dead website: http://intellectualdark.website/. I'm 100% sure that website is not a reliable source, and describing intellectual associations of people based on an op-ed regurgitation of that content does not satisfy WP:BLP. From the op-ed:
The closest thing to a phone book for the I.D.W. is a sleek website that lists the dramatis personae of the network ...
My suggestion would be to include actual reliable sources for people who have self-affiliated with the group, instead of relying on dubiously sourced information. In the meantime, I've made it clearer that this list is being sourced from Opinion. 99.152.115.208 ( talk) 15:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Weird. >>> Just a normal reader a little confused, here.
The majority of the intellectual dark web members are liberal leaning. Wikipedia lists the major figures as
Of these 17, only Murray, Sommers, Shapiro, and Peterson are conservative, while Rubin is libertarian. Moreover, there are no truly far-right intellectuals (e.g, Patrick Deneen, Sohrab Ahamri) in the intellectual dark web. Yet the article makes the IDW seem like a right-wing movement. This article needs to be more balanced. ( talk • contribs) 17:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC) Island Pelican ( talk) 19:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Island Pelican ( talk) 19:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I've removed several instances of leading language, but this article really is littered with them.
For instance, from the lead, I just removed "The term, which metaphorically compared opposition to mainstream opinion to what is illicitly found on the dark web, was not originally intended to be wholly serious". This is implying that the name itself is a
False equivalence through the contrast of "mainstream opinion" vs "illicit". Whether or not that's the case, it's not backed up by any of the sources in this article so is
WP:UNDUE. There are many other instances of this. I've attached an NPOV template until these issues can be resolved.
BrigadierG (
talk)
18:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I had never heard of the "intellectual dark web" until I saw a mention in another article of someone who was supposedly in it but left. "Huh?" I thought, "the dark web is where illicit stuff is posted. What’s the intellectual dark web? Somewhere where people openly justify issues such as child molestation?"
The creator of the term has, basically, tried to do a nut job on right-leaning thinkers by labelling them with his made up derogatory term. Because there’s nothing illegitimate about having right wing views. All Wikipedians should strive to maintain that consideration, and if they don’t, then they cannot be adhering to NPOV and should not be editing at all. But because that nut job article was in the New York Times, and because current affairs issues on Wikipedia appear to be overseen and worked primarily by those who do their utmost to label any right wing news source as unreliable, we now have an article giving this nut job derogatory term legitimacy. The article should be deleted, and soon. Boscaswell talk 04:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
As far as I can tell from the sources used in the article, members of the "IDW" are largely only "left" within the narrow scope of contemporary American politics. Beyond that scope, it seems very odd indeed to characterize them as "left" rather than "center". Re-framing them as more of a rightwing and centrist collection of figures would, insofar as I can tell, more easily clarify their views, which are primarily critical of what they themselves call "the left". Comrade GC ( talk) 17:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
The only two sources to suggest that the IDW extends left of the center-line of politics at all are the Hamburger piece and the National Review. And the Hamburger source is being grossly misrepresented as it clearly declares the IDW as right-wing. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Bari Weiss, Sam Harris, Steven Pinker or Bill Maher aren't particularly pro-capitalist
Aside from Ben Shapiro, who calls himself a “sometimes Trump” Republican, it is hard to find a member of this movement who identifies in any respect with the American conservative movement of the last half-century (Jordan Peterson occasionally calls himself a conservative, but as a Canadian, he can plausibly distance himself from the GOP). Cultural liberals for the most part, they have little interest in reviving the conservative polemic against the 1960s. There is little reason to think that Sam Harris and the TV host Bill Maher — outspoken atheists who often promote drug use — seek a return to “family values” traditionalism.
although he doesn't name names I think we both know that it's Sam Harris
and as for Jordan Peterson I think the consensus on his political position (far right) has solidified since 2018. I would be willing to accept a statement saying Hamburger claims Bill Maher, Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson are examples of non-right-wing participants but acording to (RS), (RS) (RS) (RS) they are, in fact, conservatives. Simonm223 ( talk) 13:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Those who have been labelled as being part of the IDW come from both the right and left
No, they do not. User:Jweiss11 claimed that "Harris, Weinstein, and Weinstein" are on the left. There is zero evidence for that claim. Harris is a so-called "enlightened centrist" who has literally spent the entirety of his podcast career denigrating the American left. Calling him a leftist is nothing but prevarication. Harris is a critic of Trump, but that doesn't make him a leftist.
Bret Weinstein says he supported Bernie Sanders and Occupy, but neither of those are exclusively "leftist" positions. Sanders picked up a huge number of people on the right after speaking at Liberty University (some right-wing Christian evangelicals see Sanders has adhering to some aspects of Christian socialism which has adherents on the right). Further Sanders attracts populist support in general, leading many on the left to believe that Sanders could have beat Trump in 2016 due to this populist appeal on the right. Of course, the DNC strongly disagreed, given their right-wing donors.
Occupy wasn't a leftist movement per se, but a recognition that the working class was getting screwed. Again, that's not a particularly "leftist" position, it's a populist one. Brett says "I have been on the left my entire adult life", and yet he has spent the last five years promoting himself on right-wing media and pushing right-wing talking points. This particular phenomenon is often described as conspirituality, a merging of left and right ideas, causes, memes, and concepts; not quite left and not quite right. Finally, Brett has said that his current set of beliefs and values are best described as center-right in the current climate.
Eric Weinstein spent almost a decade working for the arch right wing figure Peter Thiel. It is unlikely that anyone on the left would ever work for Thiel, no matter how much he would pay. Like his brother, Eric has spent the last five years promoting himself on right wing media and pushing right wing ideas. Like his brother, he is best defined as center-right.
That leaves nobody on the left who can be described as a member of the IDW. Viriditas ( talk) 07:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Why is Lex Fridman included in the associated individuals list? He is not mentioned in the cited source. 2001:999:588:1F65:E5DE:C006:D053:AEE7 ( talk) 18:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi, this is my first ever post on Wikipedia after decades of use, I have just heard this term "intellectual dark web" and came here looking for explanation. The first line says this "is a term used by some commentators who oppose". This is problematic because they could be describing themselves or others. I am genuinely confused. I have done some research (as someone who has JUST heard this term) and it seems (but I could be mistaken) that either of the above terms are generally wrong? Because it seems (again I could be wrong) that this term isn't generally used by people to describe themselves as the I.D.W. For example Shapiro doesn't call himself this as far as I can tell. So it seems that the first line is very misleading... should it say this instead "is a term used to describe some commentators who oppose"? If it did say this then people would look at the names on the list like Shapiros and come to the conclusion that others describe him as this, which if I understand this term correctly... would be the correct interpretation? Thanks, Matt. MatthewMachinist ( talk) 08:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
@ GreenMeansGo: I see you added some content sourced to Unherd in 2001 with a quote from David Rubin, but you ended the quote in strange place that could leave the reader either dumbfounded as to the meaning of the quote or give the false impression that Rubin think that merely employing tools of liberalism in general is a fatal mistake. The fuller quote is "They've made what to me seems to be a very obvious fatal mistake, that you can use any of the tools of Liberalism — of open inquiry, freedom of speech, respect for your fellow human beings, individual rights — that you can use any of these things to rationalise with the monster that is coming to burn your house down. And that's why we've seen in effect the liberals have no defence over this, which is why all the liberal institutions are crumbling." His point is about dealing with those that everyone in the IDW would agree are left of liberal. Jweiss11 ( talk) 13:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
hello,
what does it take in Feb 2024 to demonstrate that none of those who were in this grouping identifies with this grouping any more, if they ever did? do we trust outside sources? (There are probably none insisting on grouping these people together under this name since 2021.) Do we trust the identified members themselves? If so, how can we find a source that says that none of these people identify with this label now? Do we have to find a source for each member, do demonstrate that they don't belong?
I think the term IDW is fine as term that had some salience for a few years. And we can state who belonged to the group for that period. (I guess from 2018-2021.)
skak E L 14:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)