Re: [Bug-gnupedia]E2

[Dries van Oosten]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Tom Tollenaere wrote:

> With respect to Dries' last submission: oops!  I was not trying to
> suggest anything - I just pointed out how everything2 does things.
> Actually, the whole high-priest things makes for that e2 style, which
> you either like or not (and I don't - although that won't stop me from
> using e2... won't contribute, though).  I don't think an encyclopedia
> should have any kind of this-is-our-little-club style; we should
> probably try to produce things a bit more 'sec': whether an article
> deserves to be included should only depend on it's information/education
> value (and good taste), not on 'style' or 'high priests' likes or
> dislikes.

Then we agree. We want to build something that has the potential of
lasting and contributing, pulling everything around one group is not the
way we want to go.

> For that reason I do like the 'blind' review concept: that's
> what scientific journals do too..

I have some first hand experience with that, that is, I'm waiting for a
referee report as we speak and I can tell you that it is not an ideal
situation. The good thing about a blind review is that I don't know who
reviews me, so I can't take revenche by stopping his article the next
time. The blindness only goes one way however. The reviewers knows who
wrote it. That's a bit unfair. Also, when you disagree with a reviewer, it
takes the editors a lot of time to mediate, because there cannot be direct
contact between the author and the referee. Since we all have day time
jobs, time is something we do not have *grin*.

> So basically, I agree with your statements, sorry for the confusion!

That's ok, no harm done.

Groeten,
Dries