[Bug-gnupedia]Related Project, what works, ect.

[PIIS31415926]

One really good site to look at for organization of a project like this is 
the Open Directory Project:

http://www.dmoz.org/

One nice thing about something like this is that even the web site tools will 
also be freely available (which has been a consistant complaint of the ODP... 
even if the data from the project is free to anybody who wants to use it).  
As a side note, an effort may also want to get done to have the GnuPedia 
indexed on the ODP, which would make it available on many of the current web 
search engine sites as well as a number of portals.  Not to mention good for 
some initial publicity in a healthy sense (besides getting slashdotted)  Look 
at:

http://www.dmoz.org/Reference/Encyclopedia/

for a list of current project that are somewhat related (and there are a 
bunch of links as well).

Another really good paradyme to compare to is the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the 
Galaxy at:

http://www.hhgg.com/

For those Douglas Adams fans, this is a for-real book that the organizers are 
trying to put in an e-book format eventually.... to be as wild and weird as 
the device mentioned in the book of the same name.  My only real complaint 
about this site is the propritary nature of the data generated.  The Free 
Documentation License is definitely not even being remotely followed here, 
and a real threat is to grab the data generated by this project and turn it 
into a propriatary for-profit business on the back of the volunteers is very 
real.  That is also why I havn't contributed to the hhgg already is because 
of complaints of copyright.  You can use this site, however, to get a general 
idea of what something like the GnuPedia could have for a user base when it 
gets mature, and what kinds of technical issues have been encountered when 
doing something of this nature.

The basic interface to add data to the project is critical, and I think both 
the ODP as well as HHGG have done it 

Another honorable mention is Everything2:

http://everything2.com/

Which is an organization of ideas with some good (internal) hyperlinks that 
also shows both some problems with an encyclopedic effort on the 'net as well 
as how stuff can be thrown together.

Something that I also like about the Open Directory Project is the peer 
review process.  If you want to become an editor, you start with a very 
narrow topic (for instance, your hometown or a hobby like Roman coin 
collecting) and if you have proven trustworthy and diligent with the area 
(you aren't 'spamming' you own web pages and are willing to work with others, 
write good copy for the link descriptions, ect.) you are then trusted to work 
on larger categories, generally something already covering a scope of what 
you've been working on works better.  For those that have moved up the chain 
of responsibility and have also dedicated themselves to the future of the 
project, they are given 'EditAll' privileges to work anywhere in the 
directory that they choose.... usually trying to clean up messes made by 
other editors or moving stuff from a major category to another, or even 
newbie support.

A similiar structure could be put in place here.... especially in regards to 
editors for article entries. Simply throwing stuff into an alphabetical 
arrangement isn't necessarily the best way to reference information, and is 
tough to organize.  A heirarchial organization at least allows a methodology 
to both search and submit information, as well as an appeal process if you 
think that a particular editor doesn't like what you've written because of 
certain religious/political/cultural bias.  An argument can also be made that 
an editor familiar with a particular area of expertise would also be able to 
find factual errors easier than somebody completely unfamiliar with the 
topic.  And for those items that defy a category, an editor can certainly 
work with other editors (by transfering the article to that other editor or 
other means) to review a submission.

As I have not so clearly stated above, I think it is the organization of the 
editors which is going to be critical here.  Getting people to submit stuff 
will not really be that tough (it is a lot of work, but the tech skill levels 
aren't that high so there will be quite a few people capable of submitting 
quality work).  Another really tough thing to deal with is copyright 
clearance... essentially ensuring that a given article is indeed original, 
drawn from the Public Domain, Free Document License, ect.  This isn't as easy 
to determine as you might think, but giving people submitting articles a 
decent trust metric of some sort (/. karma, for instance) could help in many 
respects.  

One final thing that I think the Open Directory Project got right:  The Adult 
category.  When somebody in the ODP submits a link to a porn site, it goes 
right to the category editor of the Adult category, and they organize it 
according to their own "standards" for that category.  You don't have 
"censorship" in the normal sense, because that link is still available.  I 
think that a similar policy should be adopted for articles of an "erotic" or 
otherwise controvercial nature.  Co-opt what could be a problem and allow it 
its own space to grow and develop on its own.  Even if somebody decides to 
submit an article regarding the sex habits of a pair of electrons and try to 
send it to a nuclear physics category, it could be dealt with in a more or 
less fair fashion without the censorship cries that would happen if you 
outright reject the article.  You may want to encourage the author to improve 
the grammar or do some better research on the topic, but the idea itself 
isn't necessarily dead.  It may also have to be moved to another category.

Robert Horning