bug-gne
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug-gnupedia] Just a few issues


From: Dave Hein
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnupedia] Just a few issues
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 19:23:14 -0600

From:                   Tom Chance <address@hidden>
To:                     address@hidden
Subject:                [Bug-gnupedia] Just a few issues
Send reply to:          address@hidden
        <mailto:address@hidden>
        <mailto:address@hidden>
Date sent:              Wed, 17 Jan 2001 15:54:46 -0800 (PST)


These are all good points.  It makes me think that we need a 
mechanism for authors to get feedback and to be able to respond and 
to update their articles in response.  After all, peer review and 
editorial review won't catch everything;  and, of course, some topics 
will need to be updated as new facts are learned.

Of course, changing an article in response to commentary should allow 
the article's ranking to change as well.  (Assuming that there would 
be some sort of ranking system.)

> 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


--
"Dave Hein" <address@hidden>

  Breathing in, I know I am breathing in.  
  Breathing out, I know I am breathing out.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]