Amen. The two words that will characterise this period of history will be "corruption" and "unaccountability". Western management has turned impunity--legal, financial, and personal--into a science.
Denigrate it all you want. It's about communication, which you clearly don't care a whit about in your current job. Good for you; the moment you get into a job or a situation where you have to work with others, or deal with others, or gods forbid, COOPERATE with others... you're up shit's creek.
You're offering up a straw man; a dichotomy between competence and communication. Nowhere in my post did I ever advocate that communication is unnecessary. Plenty of engineers and other professional can and do communicate well. They also understand their job and profession.
But a manager with "people skills" and little else is fundamentally unable to properly communicate in his postion. How can someone communicate if they don't understand what they're talking about? What kind of company results from such people at the helm instead of people who know what they're talking about.
Which isn't to say that I advocate the autistic engineer running things either. But I can't honestly say whether a flake is worse than a PHB or not. Neither is qualified for a management position.
Very interesting. But the cynic in me says that this is a temporary development. The pages were present before and it is only a matter of time before they are removed again.
I also note that the list at the bottom has only perhaps ~30 Pokemon, whereas there were over 100 in the game. The criterion for inclusion does not seem to be very broad.
Too true. I live in Ireland, and a discussion came up about what would happen if an earthquake+Tsunami of that magnitude hit this country close to say, Dublin.
My conclusion was that you would basically have to write off the whole state. Half the buildings would collapse, Dublin would be submerged, and there would be no infrastructure or competence to mount a rescue or recovery operation. Those not killed in the mass collapse of buildings, would die soon after from starvation and disease. The response of most of the population would be, naturally, to emigrate.
But... this conclusion would probably hold for most other western states as well. We all remember Hurricane Katrina. The mantras of free market solutions and small government have left most western nations with barebones disaster response capabilities. A major Earthquake, Tsunami, Hurricane or firestorm in the wrong place could probably turn most western countries into Haiti within hours.
By contrast, the Japanese need only put up with power cuts. Nuclear plants aside--they have a well developed emergency response infrastructure. No skyscrapers collapsed and people actually got a warning that a Tsunami was coming, despite the nearness of the epicentre. The army was out collecting people the very next day. Again, compare this response to what happened in New Orleans.
Japan was far more prepared than any other Western nation, and their preparations have paid off. Pray your country is never visited with a disaster of this magnitude.
You call it people skills; I call it style without substance.
Managers relying on it have sunk and wrecked most great companies in the western world. We have people at the helm of many companies who don't understand even the most fundamental principles of what their company does or provides.
Why have most western companies off shored and effectively sold all their secrets, techniques and futures to China and more? Because their management simply did not understand what it was doing; their time was spent concentrating on starching their suits and studying up on the latest buzzspeak phrases.
You want "people skills", you got em. You want actual skills, look somewhere else.
Place accredited experts and academics in charge of pages. Give knowledgeable, identified individuals ultimate editorial control over pages or groups of pages so that, while anyone can edit, disputes, in-correctness and cruft can all be managed by an overall editor proficient in that field.
Establish a new foundation to run the encyclopedia, with close links to academia and higher educational bodies. Fund the site though these links and not via private donations. Establish a board of governors, drawn from library organisations and academia, who will ultimately oversee the project and who are charged with its good running.
And of course, fire Wales and his cronies, sweep away the existing bureaucracy and evict the destructive admins currently in place, replacing them with experts. At all times, keep the focus on harnessing the energy of altruistic contributors, to be organised and amalgamated by experts.
Wikipedia can succeed, but not with passive aggressive control freaks running it.
Well, some people do, not neccessarily because they care about the content.
At the risk of repeating myself, I've mentioned the case of Pidgey the Pokemon before. Suffice to say that once Pidgey had his own page on Wikipedia, just like Old Man Murray, but now he does not.
Now, you may well scoff at the case of Pidgey(Or of Old Man Murray). After all, why should this trite children's toy be given space on an encyclopedia of any kind? But such views inevitably take us into rather different territory than Wikipedia's stated objective to become "A Repository of All Human Knowledge". If we accept that Pidgey can be excluded from the great library of the internet, then it follows that we can exclude a great deal more.
And indeed we have. Wikipedia has in the last three years undergone a great purge of information and content which would rival any Soviet censorship bureau. "What of it?!", claim supporters. "Why should we tolerate Pidgey's presence on the shelves of our glorious archive?".
And that's really what it comes down to. Information remains on Wikipedia, not because it is notable, (Pidgey was part of a $5 billion franchise), or maintainable (Sadly, Pokemon fans are still as numerous and eager as ever) . No; Information remains on Wikipedia only because it is tolerated. Old Man Murray is up for deletion because someone--anyone--simply did not want to tolerate its presence any longer.
That is what Wikipedia has been reduced to. The online book which anyone can burn. And they do. It is a great library who's primary task is destroying and deleting its own collections. That and streamlining the procedures which makes this possible.
Scoff at Pidgey if you like, but if a book about him sat on the shelf in any library, no librarian in the world would needlessly dispose of it. Indeed, many would be loath to do so, and would maintain that book as they would any other; diligently and with careful attention. The fact that Wikipedia, with its infinite shelf space and everlasting tombs, should so eagerly and callously destroy its volumes is nothing short of an international disgrace.
I don't like to push an analogy too far, but I think there's a better one here. This is like buying a DVD from a store and then standing around in the store shouting abuse. The staff would be absolutely within their rights to remove you from the store, but not to confiscate the DVD you'd bought off you as well.
Ah, but no-one had "bought" anything! This user has "licensed" a piece of software and EA/Bioware have simply unilaterally revoked that licence; a prerogative they enjoy by virtue of their control of the source code, and due to the almost total lack of regulation or oversight of the software industry, and in particular the video game industry.
Cases like this remind us that, as a professional industry, video games are still in the wild west. There is essentially no law regulation or guiding their use or sale. "Justice" is swift, unaccountable, and largely in the eye of the beholder. Purchase of software is no guarantee that the code will run, run correctly, or continue to run as intended. Gaming companies have time and again proven themselves utterly feckless custodians of their own code and services.
Cases like this are what is going to lead to industry-wide regulation and oversight. Game companies may complain, but as far as I can see, they're all being run by pig-ignorant goons who make things up as they go along. I'm sure the usual free-market nuts will complain as well, but they've no idea what they're talking about any. So bring on some laws and regulation and save us all from the capricious whims of game developers.
The patent system moved knowlege into society by allowing the inventor to continue to profit from his invention.
And the whole system is based on two key assumptions
The profit motive is the best way to encourage innovation , and more crucially
The benefits of the system would outweigh any other costs it inflicted on society.
You can argue about the first point. Personally, I think that innovation would still occur by without the patent system, but the point can be argued.
The second point is really where all the modern problems with the patent system lie. The huge costs of this system, direct and indirect, are have a deleterious effect on society, knowledge and innovation in general. It's become a matter of question whether the amount of innovation the patent system encourages is really worth the additional costs and indeed damage it imposes.
Now here's how it really happened in 1970. Mark picks a fight with Johnny who doesn't want to fight. Mark insists and instead of the good guy winning, Mark kicks the crap out of Johnny anyway. Johnny is left bleeding, bruised, dazed, stunned, crying and traumatised. Johnny goes on to have problems in later life because he was bullied in school.
God! Why so negative!? Can't you look on the bright side here?
I mean, Mark had a great day out and got a huge boost in self-confidence as a result of his win. He probably went on to become a banker or saleman of some kind.
The other children who watched from the sidelines were also not only entertained by (free to watch) bloodsport, they also learned a valuable life lesson that there is no real justice in the world and that might makes right. They also learned how hollow Johnny's rehtoric, reasons, and faith really were. Some went on to become leaders, politicians, managers, etc.
Others accepted their rightful place in the hierarchy. They learned that it is better to acquiesce to the demands of people like Mark rather than attempt futile resistance. Our diligent, efficient workforce--industrial and clerical--is founded upon such people, who will follow instructions even if they do not necessarily agree with them. Without them, who would do things like robo-signing and denying insurance?
As for Johnny, though forever scarred in some way by the fight, his ignoble defeat defused tensions in the wider group. And his tragic demise focused minds on the consequences of conflict, giving all more incentive to reach civilised consensus and co-operation.(Which is to say nothing of the economic benefit to his future therapy and treatments!) And most importantly, the children learned that the good guys only win on TV.
Our society is built on such moments! Without them, how would our companies, courts, banks, or governments ever work as properly as they do?
FTFY. Not that the Chinese government isn't the ultimate example of this kind of thinking in the 21st century, but this kind of hogwash and claptrap has been the bread and butter for statist pigs for millenia.
Whatever about states and statists, this kind of press release is pretty typical of what has come out of corporate PR offices in the last decade or two.
I digress by noting the cosy relationship between corporations and the Chinese state over the same period.
Let's agree not to call this a "Republican" or "Democratic" position.
Absolutely! I'm simply going to label Fact-Free Science as an all-American phenomenon, to be set alongside fast-food, television, and free-marketism as yet another civilisation eroding development from those peculiar fellows from the USA. What will those colonials think of next?
The amount of disparaging and dismissive comments made here, along with the generally tepid response in the West to the Libyan revolution(as well as the Arab revolutions in general) makes me feel that the West in general has no interest in democracy or freedom. Even amidst the general populace.
Obviously the west has little to gain politically or economically from any wave of democracy in the middle east. But even ideologically, people in the west seemed to be totally uninterested in recent events in the region.
Have we entered the age of "Meh, Freedom"? Maybe democracy, having hitched its fortunes to marketism and failed to deliver on its promises, has simply lost its lustre for westerners? Maybe the rise of China is turning people towards alternative forms of government? Maybe the west--and America in particular-- is tired of international conflicts and is entering a period of isolationism?
I don't know what it is, but comparing interest in the Arab revolutions to the interest in the Orange and Velvet revolutions only a few years ago, I'm struck by the increase in apathy, and in some cases dismissal by people living older democracies.
You would think this is one of those places where the technology would be constantly updated, but not so.
Maybe you want the software which prevents your plane colliding with any of three dozen others written in php on a LAMP stack with automatic updates to your latest iDink app, but I don't.
Give me a 40 year old system written in COBOL any day of the week. At least there's a chance that was written by a Real Programmer(in TECO naturally).
The key to solving this is appreciating that Wikipedia is not a machine where you put in good information and get out the encyclopedia you want to see, it's about actually dealing with human beings on a large-scale collaborative project which has differences of opinion.
In fact, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia at all. Wikipedia is in fact a game, specifically its an MMORPG--[NSFW].
This isn't just the opinion of the internet diplomacy bridage of encyclopedia dramatica. It's also shared by the former editor of Encyclopedia Britannica. He also gave this opinion more explicitly in a documentary about the influence of the web, which I can't find at the moment.
So Wikipedia is essentially a game. For the players, the stakes are not exactly high. Ultimately nobody cares how much "WP:EXP" they ammass, or how high they rise on the "WP:SCALE".
But for the rest of the world, the stakes are currently enormous. The reality is that Wikipedia is becoming the world's foremost gateway to knowladge. The end result of these players, their petty squabbles, cliques, and infighting, are the pages which the majority of the world is being directed to when it seeks information and learning. Needless to say, this is a disaster.
The dreadful fallout from so much politics and melodrama leaves pages that are essentially babbling and incoherant. I've ranted about this before, so I'm not going to repeat myself here, except to say that in my opinion, the Wikipedia pages on mathematics are actively damaging the future of mathematics, probably turning many budding mathematicians off the subject before they discover anything about it. Wikipedia shows mathematics in its worst possible light, because no mathematician is allowed near those pages. As an expert, I know this is true of mathematics, but I suspect it's the same for many other subjects.
Our discussion here are of no avail. Ultimately the only solution to the Wikipedia Question will be to remove it from the control of Jimbo et al and place it in the hands of an international, cross institutional, academic body. People who could actually run a depository of knowladge, instead of playing games with it.
Which is a euphemism for "all the deletionists get butthurt when they can't hide from the public backlash".
What does this word mean?! Is this some kind of idiom? Does it mean chagrined, petulant, passive-aggressive? The etymology makes no sense to me(Am I being "butthurt" in writing this post?). From what I can tell, it appears to be some concocted offspring of the 'chan message-boards.
In any case, as I've said in an earlier post, Slashdot is not 4chan. Can we please all try to keep comments above a 4th grade reading level?
From what I can see, it didn't have sources. The references were to the Old Man Murray site itself, a primary source, and blogs, which are not reliable sources. Wikipedia articles should have references to reliable secondary sources. This is the notability guideline.
Following several significant firmware updates and the addition of new apps for Netflix, Hulu, Vudu, and other content sources, all pushed automatically out to users' devices, the $199 D-Link Boxee Box is finally stating to feel more like a finished product than a beta-test device. What's next for Boxee?
Well, given their company, I think that Boxee's next move will be to apologise and tell me that their services are no longer available in my country.
Elitism is simply the wrong word to describe rule or diktat from an oligarchical group. It's wrong because being "elite" implies that those in charge are actually competent at what they do. Often they are anything but. In addition, when someone is good at their job, describing them as elite now somehow makes on a negative connotation.
Elite is simply the wrong word to use. Happily, a suitable alternative exists. That word is ascendancy.
An Ascendancy is a group which has risen to a ruling position in society and which has maintained that position regardless of competence, merit or even public approval. It is effectively a kind of hereditary group nobility within important institutions in society, public and private. Importantly, it's noblesse without the oblige. Ostensibly all positions are open to all candidates; in reality, membership is restricted--by convention or contacts--to the Ascendancy class.
The key features distinguishing Ascendancy from "Elitism" or an aristocracy is that in the former, no real concept of merit or a meritocracy is applied and in the latter, no formal system of inheritance or obligation exists. An Ascendancy is simply a group which holds power, almost always undeservedly.
Slashdot Mirror
Amen. The two words that will characterise this period of history will be "corruption" and "unaccountability". Western management has turned impunity--legal, financial, and personal--into a science.
You're offering up a straw man; a dichotomy between competence and communication. Nowhere in my post did I ever advocate that communication is unnecessary. Plenty of engineers and other professional can and do communicate well. They also understand their job and profession.
But a manager with "people skills" and little else is fundamentally unable to properly communicate in his postion. How can someone communicate if they don't understand what they're talking about? What kind of company results from such people at the helm instead of people who know what they're talking about.
Which isn't to say that I advocate the autistic engineer running things either. But I can't honestly say whether a flake is worse than a PHB or not. Neither is qualified for a management position.
Very interesting. But the cynic in me says that this is a temporary development. The pages were present before and it is only a matter of time before they are removed again.
I also note that the list at the bottom has only perhaps ~30 Pokemon, whereas there were over 100 in the game. The criterion for inclusion does not seem to be very broad.
Too true. I live in Ireland, and a discussion came up about what would happen if an earthquake+Tsunami of that magnitude hit this country close to say, Dublin.
My conclusion was that you would basically have to write off the whole state. Half the buildings would collapse, Dublin would be submerged, and there would be no infrastructure or competence to mount a rescue or recovery operation. Those not killed in the mass collapse of buildings, would die soon after from starvation and disease. The response of most of the population would be, naturally, to emigrate.
But... this conclusion would probably hold for most other western states as well. We all remember Hurricane Katrina. The mantras of free market solutions and small government have left most western nations with barebones disaster response capabilities. A major Earthquake, Tsunami, Hurricane or firestorm in the wrong place could probably turn most western countries into Haiti within hours.
By contrast, the Japanese need only put up with power cuts. Nuclear plants aside--they have a well developed emergency response infrastructure. No skyscrapers collapsed and people actually got a warning that a Tsunami was coming, despite the nearness of the epicentre. The army was out collecting people the very next day. Again, compare this response to what happened in New Orleans.
Japan was far more prepared than any other Western nation, and their preparations have paid off. Pray your country is never visited with a disaster of this magnitude.
Time was, you wouldn't even expect this from the history channel. It's even weird to say that now.
You call it people skills; I call it style without substance.
Managers relying on it have sunk and wrecked most great companies in the western world. We have people at the helm of many companies who don't understand even the most fundamental principles of what their company does or provides.
Why have most western companies off shored and effectively sold all their secrets, techniques and futures to China and more? Because their management simply did not understand what it was doing; their time was spent concentrating on starching their suits and studying up on the latest buzzspeak phrases.
You want "people skills", you got em. You want actual skills, look somewhere else.
Place accredited experts and academics in charge of pages. Give knowledgeable, identified individuals ultimate editorial control over pages or groups of pages so that, while anyone can edit, disputes, in-correctness and cruft can all be managed by an overall editor proficient in that field.
Establish a new foundation to run the encyclopedia, with close links to academia and higher educational bodies. Fund the site though these links and not via private donations. Establish a board of governors, drawn from library organisations and academia, who will ultimately oversee the project and who are charged with its good running.
And of course, fire Wales and his cronies, sweep away the existing bureaucracy and evict the destructive admins currently in place, replacing them with experts. At all times, keep the focus on harnessing the energy of altruistic contributors, to be organised and amalgamated by experts.
Wikipedia can succeed, but not with passive aggressive control freaks running it.
Well, some people do, not neccessarily because they care about the content.
At the risk of repeating myself, I've mentioned the case of Pidgey the Pokemon before. Suffice to say that once Pidgey had his own page on Wikipedia, just like Old Man Murray, but now he does not.
Now, you may well scoff at the case of Pidgey(Or of Old Man Murray). After all, why should this trite children's toy be given space on an encyclopedia of any kind? But such views inevitably take us into rather different territory than Wikipedia's stated objective to become "A Repository of All Human Knowledge". If we accept that Pidgey can be excluded from the great library of the internet, then it follows that we can exclude a great deal more.
And indeed we have. Wikipedia has in the last three years undergone a great purge of information and content which would rival any Soviet censorship bureau. "What of it?!", claim supporters. "Why should we tolerate Pidgey's presence on the shelves of our glorious archive?".
And that's really what it comes down to. Information remains on Wikipedia, not because it is notable, (Pidgey was part of a $5 billion franchise), or maintainable (Sadly, Pokemon fans are still as numerous and eager as ever) . No; Information remains on Wikipedia only because it is tolerated . Old Man Murray is up for deletion because someone--anyone--simply did not want to tolerate its presence any longer.
That is what Wikipedia has been reduced to. The online book which anyone can burn. And they do. It is a great library who's primary task is destroying and deleting its own collections. That and streamlining the procedures which makes this possible.
Scoff at Pidgey if you like, but if a book about him sat on the shelf in any library, no librarian in the world would needlessly dispose of it. Indeed, many would be loath to do so, and would maintain that book as they would any other; diligently and with careful attention. The fact that Wikipedia, with its infinite shelf space and everlasting tombs, should so eagerly and callously destroy its volumes is nothing short of an international disgrace.
Ah, but no-one had "bought" anything! This user has "licensed" a piece of software and EA/Bioware have simply unilaterally revoked that licence; a prerogative they enjoy by virtue of their control of the source code, and due to the almost total lack of regulation or oversight of the software industry, and in particular the video game industry.
Cases like this remind us that, as a professional industry, video games are still in the wild west. There is essentially no law regulation or guiding their use or sale. "Justice" is swift, unaccountable, and largely in the eye of the beholder. Purchase of software is no guarantee that the code will run, run correctly, or continue to run as intended. Gaming companies have time and again proven themselves utterly feckless custodians of their own code and services.
Cases like this are what is going to lead to industry-wide regulation and oversight. Game companies may complain, but as far as I can see, they're all being run by pig-ignorant goons who make things up as they go along. I'm sure the usual free-market nuts will complain as well, but they've no idea what they're talking about any. So bring on some laws and regulation and save us all from the capricious whims of game developers.
Based on what happened in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, I think you would stand to lose a State.
And the whole system is based on two key assumptions
You can argue about the first point. Personally, I think that innovation would still occur by without the patent system, but the point can be argued.
The second point is really where all the modern problems with the patent system lie. The huge costs of this system, direct and indirect, are have a deleterious effect on society, knowledge and innovation in general. It's become a matter of question whether the amount of innovation the patent system encourages is really worth the additional costs and indeed damage it imposes.
God! Why so negative!? Can't you look on the bright side here?
I mean, Mark had a great day out and got a huge boost in self-confidence as a result of his win. He probably went on to become a banker or saleman of some kind.
The other children who watched from the sidelines were also not only entertained by (free to watch) bloodsport, they also learned a valuable life lesson that there is no real justice in the world and that might makes right. They also learned how hollow Johnny's rehtoric, reasons, and faith really were. Some went on to become leaders, politicians, managers, etc.
Others accepted their rightful place in the hierarchy. They learned that it is better to acquiesce to the demands of people like Mark rather than attempt futile resistance. Our diligent, efficient workforce--industrial and clerical--is founded upon such people, who will follow instructions even if they do not necessarily agree with them. Without them, who would do things like robo-signing and denying insurance?
As for Johnny, though forever scarred in some way by the fight, his ignoble defeat defused tensions in the wider group. And his tragic demise focused minds on the consequences of conflict, giving all more incentive to reach civilised consensus and co-operation.(Which is to say nothing of the economic benefit to his future therapy and treatments!) And most importantly, the children learned that the good guys only win on TV.
Our society is built on such moments! Without them, how would our companies, courts, banks, or governments ever work as properly as they do?
Whatever about states and statists, this kind of press release is pretty typical of what has come out of corporate PR offices in the last decade or two.
I digress by noting the cosy relationship between corporations and the Chinese state over the same period.
Absolutely! I'm simply going to label Fact-Free Science as an all-American phenomenon, to be set alongside fast-food, television, and free-marketism as yet another civilisation eroding development from those peculiar fellows from the USA. What will those colonials think of next?
Tulips.
Your arguments are invalid.
The amount of disparaging and dismissive comments made here, along with the generally tepid response in the West to the Libyan revolution(as well as the Arab revolutions in general) makes me feel that the West in general has no interest in democracy or freedom. Even amidst the general populace.
Obviously the west has little to gain politically or economically from any wave of democracy in the middle east. But even ideologically, people in the west seemed to be totally uninterested in recent events in the region.
Have we entered the age of "Meh, Freedom"? Maybe democracy, having hitched its fortunes to marketism and failed to deliver on its promises, has simply lost its lustre for westerners? Maybe the rise of China is turning people towards alternative forms of government? Maybe the west--and America in particular-- is tired of international conflicts and is entering a period of isolationism?
I don't know what it is, but comparing interest in the Arab revolutions to the interest in the Orange and Velvet revolutions only a few years ago, I'm struck by the increase in apathy, and in some cases dismissal by people living older democracies.
Maybe you want the software which prevents your plane colliding with any of three dozen others written in php on a LAMP stack with automatic updates to your latest iDink app, but I don't.
Give me a 40 year old system written in COBOL any day of the week. At least there's a chance that was written by a Real Programmer(in TECO naturally).
In fact, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia at all. Wikipedia is in fact a game, specifically its an MMORPG--[NSFW].
This isn't just the opinion of the internet diplomacy bridage of encyclopedia dramatica. It's also shared by the former editor of Encyclopedia Britannica. He also gave this opinion more explicitly in a documentary about the influence of the web, which I can't find at the moment.
So Wikipedia is essentially a game. For the players, the stakes are not exactly high. Ultimately nobody cares how much "WP:EXP" they ammass, or how high they rise on the "WP:SCALE".
But for the rest of the world, the stakes are currently enormous. The reality is that Wikipedia is becoming the world's foremost gateway to knowladge. The end result of these players, their petty squabbles, cliques, and infighting, are the pages which the majority of the world is being directed to when it seeks information and learning. Needless to say, this is a disaster.
The dreadful fallout from so much politics and melodrama leaves pages that are essentially babbling and incoherant. I've ranted about this before, so I'm not going to repeat myself here, except to say that in my opinion, the Wikipedia pages on mathematics are actively damaging the future of mathematics, probably turning many budding mathematicians off the subject before they discover anything about it. Wikipedia shows mathematics in its worst possible light, because no mathematician is allowed near those pages. As an expert, I know this is true of mathematics, but I suspect it's the same for many other subjects.
Our discussion here are of no avail. Ultimately the only solution to the Wikipedia Question will be to remove it from the control of Jimbo et al and place it in the hands of an international, cross institutional, academic body. People who could actually run a depository of knowladge, instead of playing games with it.
What does this word mean?! Is this some kind of idiom? Does it mean chagrined, petulant, passive-aggressive? The etymology makes no sense to me(Am I being "butthurt" in writing this post?). From what I can tell, it appears to be some concocted offspring of the 'chan message-boards.
In any case, as I've said in an earlier post, Slashdot is not 4chan. Can we please all try to keep comments above a 4th grade reading level?
Somewhere, a professional historian is weeping.
Hi. Welcome to Slashdot. Just to remind you and out other newer posters of a few house rules:
Well, given their company, I think that Boxee's next move will be to apologise and tell me that their services are no longer available in my country.
Collect 8 top quarks and 3 anti-hydrogen atoms.
Wow. That was gorgeously animated for something over 60 years old. Wither our digital animation technologies now?
Elitism is simply the wrong word to describe rule or diktat from an oligarchical group. It's wrong because being "elite" implies that those in charge are actually competent at what they do. Often they are anything but. In addition, when someone is good at their job, describing them as elite now somehow makes on a negative connotation.
Elite is simply the wrong word to use. Happily, a suitable alternative exists. That word is ascendancy.
An Ascendancy is a group which has risen to a ruling position in society and which has maintained that position regardless of competence, merit or even public approval. It is effectively a kind of hereditary group nobility within important institutions in society, public and private. Importantly, it's noblesse without the oblige. Ostensibly all positions are open to all candidates; in reality, membership is restricted--by convention or contacts--to the Ascendancy class.
The key features distinguishing Ascendancy from "Elitism" or an aristocracy is that in the former, no real concept of merit or a meritocracy is applied and in the latter, no formal system of inheritance or obligation exists. An Ascendancy is simply a group which holds power, almost always undeservedly.