[Top][All Lists]
[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
Re: [Bug-gnupedia]Changes to articles, Tom Chance, 2001/01/30
Re: [Bug-gnupedia]Changes to articles, Bob Dodd, 2001/01/30