Re: [Bug-gnupedia]Changes to articles

[Jimmy Wales]

Mike Warren wrote:
> ``Moderation'' should consist of nothing more than getting rid of
> blatantly obvious spam.

This is a commendable viewpoint, but perhaps very difficult to
inmplement in practice... and it will perhaps have some unintended
side-effects that are somewhat undesirable.

Who is to determine what is blatantly obvious spam?  One author may
view an article about his company to be completely objective and
neutral and worthwhile, while you may view it as spam... particularly
if it touts the superiority of the author's company's product.

How about articles about travel, prepared by travel agents, and
publicizing only the destinations and resorts that are favored by
the agent?  These can be potentially very informative, so are
they spam?  Only if they are _blatant_ somehow?

The problem is that your definition is a non-definition.  It gives
no method or system whereby we might objectively determine what to
do in a wide range of borderline cases.

------

Additionally, one unintended side effect is that the GNE may become
a repository for completely unusably biased texts.  There are controversial
topics with authors willing to go to great lengths to slam one another.

Scientology is a good example.  There are heated opinions on both
sides.  Will you permit them to revise and re-revise each others
articles endlessly, and allow all the revisions sequentially into
your repository?

What of holocaust deniers, or even holocaust *supporters*?  Is their
view to be given equal weight with that of serious historians?  Suppose
they seek to re-edit and re-submit every article written on their
pet topics?

I'm not saying that these are insurmountable problems -- I am just
saying that they are real problems that an "only remove blatant
spam" doesn't address.

-- 
*************************************************
*            http://www.nupedia.com/            *
*      The Ever Expanding Free Encyclopedia     *
*************************************************