I listened to the lecture and mean no disrespect to the man's spirit.

But that vapid aphorism sets my teeth on edge. I couldn't help thinking: Gee, all those people who hit a brick wall because of racism, of sexism, of poverty, because they didn't have all the advantages of a well-off handsome personable white guy - well, they just must not have wanted it badly enough. They're those OTHER PEOPLE who are kept out.

It's a damn nasty metaphor when you think about it.

There are two ways you can look at an aphorism such as this "brick wall" business. Either:

1. These words of wisdom are a useful way to motivate myself when things are rough.

2. These words of wisdom should be used as a criteria for judging other people.

I think it's a damn nasty metaphor only when you apply it to someone other than yourself. Let me put it this way... we should celebrate those people who have pushed past whatever tremendous barriers they found in their way, but we should never look down on those who tried and failed.

Probability of success in many areas of life is at least partially dependent on attitude... and as cheesy and vapid as they may sometimes sound, I will take whatever comfort and confidence I can from these sorts of inspirational messages when I come across them.

Given that that phrase is a snippet I've heard over and over in news coverage, it's inevitable that it will be repeatedly applied as other than yourself. It plays into a widespead mythology that success is purely a matter of virtute/good-attitude (anti-straw-man: I didn't say attitude has no effect at all), and a concommitant view that for those who did not succeed it's due to their unvirtuousness/bad-attitude. How could it not be used to "look down on those who tried and failed", given the part about "... stop the people who don't want something badly enough. They are there to keep out the other people." - that wording invites anyone who succeeds to think that the "other people" are lesser, the ones the wall is there to keep out.

And critically, this doesn't all exist in a vacuum. His intent might have been entirely benign, but that doesn't mean the overall effect will be entirely benign.

It doesn't matter how unfair your obstacles are. The fact is, obstacles in your path will not go away by themselves -- your only say in the matter is whether to try and overcome them, or to give up and complain.

I don't think he's justifying those walls in any way. He's just saying, if you have goals in life, you've got to accept the walls that are in your path and make the best of it. Anything else is a pipe dream.

Ah,but you can try to overcome the obstacles in very different ways. You can accept the system as it is, and merely try to compete harder within all its parameters as an individual. Or you can group-organize with others and try to change way the system works - like anti-discrimination laws, set-asides, development programs, affirmative action, etc. (sigh, I know, I've said some things here that will not be taken well - but think about it).

There's quite an industry devoted to saying that accepting the system as it is and trying to compete harder within the game is somehow right, while challenging the system and changing the game through group action is somehow wrong.

Who built the brick wall there in the first place? Maybe the best action is to get some allies and to attempt to tear it all down.

True enough. The right kind of effort, at the right time, and you get a Ghandi -- transcend boundaries, change the world. Wrong effort, wrong time? You achieve nothing but hearing the sound of your own voice complain and argue about injustice. You miscalculate your power or strategy and find your effort to be in vain. You get left behind. Life is short, and you miss out. Instead of putting up things, and actually getting shit done, you gave yourself to a battle that couldn't be won.

Regarding "23. More open alternatives to Wikipedia" - I investigated this myself a while back. A viable BUSINESS is much, much harder than it looks. To begin with, note Jimmy Wales's separate commercial company "Wikia" is already in that field, and both Wikia and Wikipedia people assist in moving some content from the noncommercial Wikipedia to the commercial Wikia. Let me be clear, I don't say what they do is illegal (even if does raise eyebrows sometimes). But it's a fact that there's already a very strong established competitor, one with a huge amount of insider access that another start-up would not have. Moreover, while it's obvious Wikipedia has a huge amount of Google-juice, few people realize how difficult that is, and how many other sites have floundered in the bottom of the search results. So what's likely to happen is the start-up ends up with a website full of junk, or even worse, gets penalized by Google for having content that's too similar to Wikipedia and/or Wikia sites.

I would like to have a place where you can have an intelligent discussion of wikipedia articles as well as being able to ask specific questions on the subject of the article. Currently, AFIK, the only discussion allowed is on how to improve the articles.