[Bug-gnupedia] Censorship vs. Discretion (GNUpedia & Nupedia)

[Seth Nickell]

The web is already a resource for expressing and accumulating a diverse
set of opinions, ideas etc. I do not think we need another such
resource. The value of an encyclopedia is that a reader can pick it up
and find a high-quality, well researched articles that deal primarily
with fact. Where the portrayals of fact alter the interpretation or
perception of a subject, a good encyclopedia will strive to present both
sides of the issue fairly in the same article, attempting to clearly
designate the opinions and possibly providing reference to more in-depth
material from those standpoints. Encyclopedias are often used as the
standard for judging a particular fact to be "common knowledge". This
indeed implies that the very nature of an entry in an encyclopedia
should be more-or-less uncontroversial. Clearly one may still address
controversial issues, but it must be attempted in a fair-handed manner!

Now of course people are easily influenced, biased, imperfect creatures,
so we cannot trust a single person to *necessarily* convey accurate,
balanced material to the peruser of the work. This is where an editorial
board enters the scene... Part of their job is to keep sending the
material back to the author until they are able to present an article
that satisfies the editors in its portrayal of an issue. The various
"absolute freedom", "avoid censorship at all costs" suggestions I see
thrown around this mailing list sound good on paper, but essentially
foist the job of editing the material onto the reader. I see two
distinct things of value in an encyclopedia, that it is written by
knowledgable well-researched authors, and that an editorial board has
gone to the trouble of tuning the presentation and culling material.
This makes it a useful work, not just a hodge-podge collection of
writings, inconsistent in veracity and possibly even pure motive.

This is just not acceptable. Yes, clearly articles that are rejected by
an editorial board for unjust reasons need a method of appeal. Yes
censorship sucks. Yes it is crucial to provide mechanisms for ensuring
it does not prevail... But I hope we are producing a work of greater
merit than a clipboard of mental farts. I will be forthright in
expressing myself, though I know this will rub some people wrong who are
unaccustomed or reject the notion: some opinions and ideas are worth
more than others. And even more dangerous to acknowledge... I believe
some people's opinions and ideas have greater merit than others. This
does not just divid into an aristocracy, or whatever your favorite evil
political structure may be. A well researched, well written, carefully
presented article is worthy of greater merit in an academic work than
one that is conived in order to sway people to a particular view. (this
message, for example, would clearly be inappropriate material in an
encyclopedia ;-)

You probably want freedom to prevent the spread of dis-information,
conspiracy, rule of the majority, and other manners of evil... but
ultimately you provide more disinformation if a reader must themselves
ascertain the truth of an article in a work like an encyclopedia. It is
not a matter of the reader being unintelligent, it is a matter of
timeliness. Additionally, it is likely that an editor will have more
information regarding the article at their disposal. I would hope that
editors are somewhat knowledgable in the areas they are reviewing...this
is much like peer review for submission to an academic journal. The
reader places their trust in the editors and the author him/herself to
provide them with critical, useful information. They are better served
by some degree of culling, editing, etc. Enhancing knowledge and
understanding is the key, and it is not well served if bound by
cumbersome clutter.

Discretion != Censorship. It is a fine line, but crucial to ascertain if
one is to siphon information in a valuable way. The internet/web suffers
from an overabundance of information due to its relative inaccesibility
and lack of cohesion (though there are many areas with insufficient
quality information too, I grant you). Commercial software and companies
realize this, and provide convenient ways for consumers to access and
use this information without being overwhelmed. It would be sad if free
software were so bound by misguided idealogy that it could not grasp the
value of discretion and editing in the process of delivering
information, and subsequently knowledge. I don't think this is true, but
we do become obsessed with little catch phrases and miss the larger
forest.

> you analysis, in that Nupedia seems to be less "open"
> and far more centralised than we would all want
> Gnupedia to be.

speak for yourself.

> This is twice this has been raised - their site offers
> no source code for the web site, or how their indexing
> works. Gnupedia should be "open" in every possible
> sense, IMO.

This could definitely be problematic. It would be important that not
only could anyone access the information, but anyone could mirror the
information, change it, redistribute it, etc without needing access to
proprietary systems for information archival, storage and delivery.

-Seth