Re: [Bug-gnupedia] Just a few issues

[Toby Tremayne]

I'd agree with both  points here - interpretation of a subject is going to
be vastly different according to who and where it comes from - but in all
honesty is that such a bad thing?  I would suggest that while
language/grammar/spelling might need to be modded, would it not be a good
diea to have as many interpretations of a subject as possible?  perhaps
marking each article with either who it's from, or at least where it's from
(as much as possible) would mean I could jump into the encyclopedia, and get
several interpretations of what I'm looking for.  From that I can draw my
own conclusions, or even parallels between the articles

That would kind of hold true to the general open source benefit at any
rate - that many different views helps us to learn and go forward..




Toby Tremayne
Code Poet and Zen Master of the Heavy Sleep
Show-Ads Interactive Pty Ltd
359 Plummer St
Port Melbourne
AUST VIC 3207
+61 3 9245 1247
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Chance <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden <address@hidden>
Date: Thursday, 18 January 2001 11:01
Subject: [Bug-gnupedia] Just a few issues


>Ok I thought of two things that need some thought,
>both involving moderation and editing of articles.
>
>First of all, its easy to forget that an article
>written by somebody living in Texas, USA may not be
>understood by someboyd living in Perth, Australia or
>even in Boston, USA. National and regional variations
>in language will need to be ironed out, as a 'pedia
>few can understand isn't much use. As such perhaps all
>articles should have to be read by somebody from the
>same country, and another from a different country
>speaking the same language, before it is displayed, to
>ensure that is comprehensible. Obviously those that
>read it would have to be knowledgeable about the
>subject, and the original author would get to check
>that the emphasis/meaning of the text hasn't been
>altered, etc.
>
>And on the moderator theme, should there be such a
>thing? Obviously a group of 50 mods who are chosen
>from this list will be very biased towards open source
>software, and many other things besides. Any moderator
>idea would rely on a very dissperate group of mods
>being available, and an input from the author, so the
>'pedia keeps many viewpoints and not just the
>prevailing ones of us lot. And if we did have mods,
>they would have to gain the status through trust and
>quality articles (not quantity, more of a /. style
>karma approach).
>
>And finally on ranking articles Good-bad or 1-5, I
>think this could be a mistake. This will marginalise
>views that aren't mainstream, so that if somebody
>submits an article on gene therapy that is very pro
>the subject, and a lot of people are against it, the
>article would look bad perhaps unjustly. As such I
>would say when reviewing a rating is available, but it
>is not shown. Instead each article could build up a
>score, and if it were sufficiently negative the
>article should be highlighted on this list/to whoever
>else ends up as mods/etc. as one that mighr be
>removed. And then only on grounds of complete
>fabrication of facts, lack of any content, or
>something similar.
>
>Thom Chance
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
>http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>
>_______________________________________________
>Bug-gnupedia mailing list
>address@hidden
>http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnupedia