Re: [Bug-gnupedia] Ratings

[Daniel Sanford]

I disagree with your final statement that we should cater for the
brainwashed people in this world. Firstly, none of us know to what extent we
ourselves are brainwashed. Secondly, I wish to find accurate information in
an encyclopaedia, and I am disappointed to find errors which I myself can
detect. If an article submitted contains obviously erroneous material (e.g.
"John F. Kennedy was born 1817"), I feel it should be referred to correction
before being published. Debatable material and opinions should be marked as
such. For this (at least in some cases), we need editors.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Chance" <address@hidden>
To: <address@hidden>
Sent: Samstag, 20. Januar 2001 18:12
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnupedia] Ratings


> 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.
>
> Tom