Re: [Bug-gnupedia] Ratings

[Tom Chance]

I think you said it exactly when you said this project
is going to be a mor open library. If a concise,
edited enclyclopedia is more what you want, talk to
the Nupedia guys cuz they seem to be doing very well
on that side. The Alexandria/Gnupedia (whatever)
resource would be like a useful, easy to browse,
version of a library + the internet. You could go to
Nupedia to find the basic "facts", then come to us to
find lots of more in depth views on the subject, and
gain other understandings of it.

Tom Chance



--- Hook <address@hidden> wrote: > 
> > Yeah any marking that is based on how accurate or
> > truthful an article is, is a very very bad idea.
> It
> > will yet again further marginalise views that may
> not
> > be common thought (like the light bulb, or the
> Chinese
> > version of Tianemen Square as cited earlier). No
> > matter how wrong a slant is on something (unless
> it is
> > patently factually wrong to the point of being
> > rubbish, like an article claiming the 2nd World
> War
> > ended on D-Day when the Americans landed in
> Britain
> > and the French rose up) it should be given the
> same
> > importance on the site as any other. I think the
> > readers will be intelligent enough to work out the
> > truth from the spin. And if they're not, then they
> > really need to be, and I don't think we should
> cater
> > for the brainwashed people in this world.
> 
> However, there are audiences whose knowledge is
> considerably less than
> yours - school kids for example.  From experience of
> listening to a fairly
> lazy 18 year old talking about WW II, the level of
> ignorance is astounding
> (by my standards anyway). Access to an online
> encyclopedia which has
> authoritative articles would be a major benefit,
> access to a web site which
> rates everything as equally important considerably
> less so.
> 
> If I want to learn about a new subject, ATM I stroll
> through the results of
> web searches, and we all know how bad they can be. 
> I'd like to be able to
> pick a site which has introductory articles, maybe a
> number written in
> different styles (at least as important as different
> content arising from
> different views), but which had an editorial policy
> which recognised
> accuracy.
> 
> GNUpedia seems to be heading more towards a library
> than an encyclopedia.
> There's absolutely no harm in that, but there *is* a
> difference.
> Personally, I'd be considerably less interested in a
> site which rated *all*
> content as equally valid -- you only have to drift
> through any chosen
> selection of Usenet groups to see what effect a lack
> of moderation can have.
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-gnupedia mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnupedia


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. 
http://auctions.yahoo.com/