[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Bug-gnupedia] Ratings
Re: [Bug-gnupedia] Ratings
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:45:17 -0800 (PST)
It has been explicitly stated many times that:
*) We will NOT have "editors" on the Gnupedia subject
*) If you want editorship, whilst keeping with the
various "Free" ideals, go to Nupedia where they are
doing just that, and very well I might add.
If a fact is as erroneous as you mentioned, I'm sure
it wouldn't get put into the resource if you had a
system whereby every article needs only one "yes vote"
to get in from moderators who have been elected by
submitting four decent articles. Only a cretin would
think that JFK was born then. For minor details, like
a year off, or even a month or days, you would need a
very good editorship who would have to research the
area extensively first to pick up such areas. In
effect you'd need as many editors as authors, to
compliment the authors.
--- Daniel Sanford <address@hidden> wrote: > I
disagree with your final statement that we should
> cater for the
> brainwashed people in this world. Firstly, none of
> us know to what extent we
> ourselves are brainwashed. Secondly, I wish to find
> accurate information in
> an encyclopaedia, and I am disappointed to find
> errors which I myself can
> detect. If an article submitted contains obviously
> erroneous material (e.g.
> "John F. Kennedy was born 1817"), I feel it should
> be referred to correction
> before being published. Debatable material and
> opinions should be marked as
> such. For this (at least in some cases), we need
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Chance" <address@hidden>
> To: <address@hidden>
> Sent: Samstag, 20. Januar 2001 18:12
> Subject: Re: [Bug-gnupedia] Ratings
> > Yeah any marking that is based on how accurate or
> > truthful an article is, is a very very bad idea.
> > will yet again further marginalise views that may
> > be common thought (like the light bulb, or the
> > version of Tianemen Square as cited earlier). No
> > matter how wrong a slant is on something (unless
> it is
> > patently factually wrong to the point of being
> > rubbish, like an article claiming the 2nd World
> > ended on D-Day when the Americans landed in
> > and the French rose up) it should be given the
> > importance on the site as any other. I think the
> > readers will be intelligent enough to work out the
> > truth from the spin. And if they're not, then they
> > really need to be, and I don't think we should
> > for the brainwashed people in this world.
> > Tom
> Bug-gnupedia mailing list
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.