bug-gne
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Bug-gnupedia]Changes to articles


From: Soam Vasani
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnupedia]Changes to articles
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 01:18:46 +0530
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

   Jimmy Wales wrote:
   > It gives no method or system whereby we might objectively
   > determine what to do in a wide range of borderline cases.

borderline cases are not blatantly obvious spam, so they go
right in.

   > Additionally, one unintended side effect is that the GNE
   > may become a repository for completely unusably biased
   > texts.

Their presence doesn't make other texts unusable.  They do add
clutter, though.  I don't have any solution for this.

   > Will you permit them to revise and re-revise each others
   > articles endlessly, and allow all the revisions
   > sequentially into your repository?

We won't prohibit that.

   > What of holocaust deniers, or even holocaust *supporters*?
   > Is their view to be given equal weight with that of serious
   > historians?

Since it's the users who read it, the "weight" given to a view
should not determined by repository maintainers, but rather by
individual users.  They will decide which articles they want to
read.

   > Suppose they seek to re-edit and re-submit every article
   > written on their pet topics?

That is why we keep old versions accessible.

   > 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.

I share your opinion that they add noise to the repository, but
we shouldn't remove them.  It would be censorship.

-- 
Soam Vasani



reply via email to

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