RE: [Bug-gne]Right/Wrong if editorship in GNE/Nupedia

[hooker]

> There's a difference between the GNE of the future with 12 million
articles 
> in it and Usenet: You can't link to other Usenet articles.

If I was going to be picky here, I'd point out that threading works from
Usenet article links in the headers. But I'm not, so I won't :-)

> The whole point of GNE is that the articles with value to an author can
be 
> permanently linked by that author in his/her article.
> 
> There has been ample discussion on how to establish these links on this 
> list, such as ID numbers stored in a central DB.
> 
> So while there may be some of everything, the articles that best reflect
the 
> "though of the day" would be linked more often, and the fringe ones would
be 
> linked less.
> 
> The classifiers, who would be independent of the articles themselves,
could 
> make whatever word lists or directory systems they want, linking to the 
> articles they prefer. Someone doing an eastern religion directory would 
> certainly include links to articles that are very different than those 
> included by a space-exploration specialist.
> 
> The idea is that either of these people would find articles relating to 
> their entries, of various level of value and quality, to be sure, yet in 
> abundance.
> 
> As far as GNE being a social experiment, I doubt that not. As far as its 
> ending up like usenet, I'd like to know what usenet has ended up being, 
> exactly.

In the context of GNE, Usenet is a huge discussion forum where pretty much
anything goes. My 200 line dissertation on the use of zinc in the computer
industry in the late 20th century (to chose a random and possibly useless
example) is likely to degenerate into a thread consisting of very few
articles which add to the original discussion and a great many which are
argumentative for its own sake.

My concern about GNE (and it *is* only a personal one) revolves round the
lack of editorial influence, and the resulting dilution of content.  Having
a dozen different views of Tiannamen Square is useful, likewise different
sides in the evolution/creation argument. However, for me at any rate,
there has to be a limit on what can easily degenerate into name calling.

This is clearly contrary to the intended direction for GNE.

Paul


> >From: "Hector Facundo Arena" <address@hidden>
> >
> > > Then it's not going to be an encyclopedia, is it?  It's going to be a
> > > library concentrating on electronic submissions with the mandate
> > > that anyone
> > > who cares to put finger to keyboard has the right to add work to the
> > > repository, with a few minor exceptions (as discussed - spam, mail
> > > bombs/viruses and copyrighted work).
> >
> >Call it however you want. The project is called GNE :)
> >
> > > It's undoubtedly going to be one of the biggest and best social
> > > experiments
> > > going, and will probably end up like usenet.
> >
> >Well, I can't agree with that cos I don't see the future...
> >
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-gne mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gne
>