RE: [Bug-gnupedia] Editorial control

[Peter Verrey]

To determine spam you need someone(s) to look over articles before they are
published.  Since this is pre-classification and pre-review the goal is not
to be subjective, but to follow a simple, clear, set of rules.  It is more
important to let articles in than make sure *all* spam is rejected.
Obviously spam:
repeat entries
product offers
pay porn links
random keystrokes
less-than-x-word (where x is obnoxiously so low it provides no real content)

In addition to rejecting spam, the goal of the pre-publish authority should
be to
make sure the required metatags are present, that links are to appropriately
free material, and whatever other specific rules are required for
publication.
These pieces need to be initially rejected, but an email should be sent to
the author for the exact reason why the article was rejected.  With spam
there is no reason to do so.

-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden
Behalf Of Imran Ghory
>
>On 23 Jan 2001, at 16:16, Peter Verrey wrote:
>
>> I hear lots of talk how this project needs to be accepting of all
>> content, and how we need complicated voting systems to categorize
>> content, to make sure the editing isn't overly biased, to make sure it
>> remains free and open to everyone, etc.... This won't work. The
>> purpose of an encyclopedia is to learn.  Learning requires useful
>> instruction.  For instruction to be useful it needs to be clear and
>> concise, and consistent.  This practically requires strong editorial
>> policy. Hopefully, we will have multiple classification systems.
>> Let's say GNU runs one, and Nupedia runs one, and Google runs one.
>> This way users can use the version they trust the most. This is why it
>> is essential to keep classification separate from the article, by the
>> way. Accept almost all articles (no spam) to be published.
>
>How would you determine what's spam and what isn't ?
>
>Imran