bug-gne
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Fwd: Re: [Bug-gne]GNE 's Not Nupedia


From: Christopher Mahan
Subject: Fwd: Re: [Bug-gne]GNE 's Not Nupedia
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 15:14:44 -0800

Your defensive posturing and illogical use of the "reply to me" but then "post the edited version on the forum" is a prime example of what I don't want to see happen.

You may not like me. You may not like what I have to say. You may not want to be associated with anything I say, think, or do, and that's your right.

What does it matter in the Grand Scheme of Things?

If I have something to say and I feel it should be shared, what right do you have to say that I cannot? Are you the arbiter of the thoughts of others? Are you the Protector of the feeble-minded, the Defender of the thinking-challenged?

Ah, before you cut with the mouse, I grant you no such right. You either use my entire posting, or use none at all. You see... It does not feel nice...

Let me tell you something about myself. I am French, as well as American. My wife is Japanese. She's a pianist, interpreter, and devout shinto/buddhist. Her sister is a graphic designer living in Japan. My best friend is black, from the South. My grandmother is a southern white protestant. I have an jewish friend from Tel Aviv, a Muslim friend from Iran. My step father is an atheist and fought in Algeria in the 50's. I could go on. And I lived in France, Texas, and now live in the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles County.

All this has shown me that nobody is right. There is no right and wrong when it comes to human knowledge. There is only what the majority believes is true, and there is the minority's view.

When there are differing views on a subject, then all views are valid, no matter how ridiculous sounding.

Let me give you an example: There are over a billion Chinese. If they hold to a view that heaven is a particular way, then how could 270 million Americans be even remotely right? They outnumber us nearly 4 to 1.

And if a billion people can all be wrong, then 270 million Americans can definitely all be wrong too.

So, neither is right, and neither is wrong. But there is one Right, right? I mean, the Earth is either flat or spherical, not both.

But what makes you or 200 editors or 20,000 editors or 200 million editors think that you could ever identify what is really Right?

I contend that you cannot, and therefore the thing will be biased, and not a repository of human knowledge.

Encarta sells for $14.95 at Borders (shameless plug). If that's the wheel you're trying to reinvent, in my opinion, you're wasting your time.

No Editing, no Review... Let the article stand as written. People who went to college already know how to write research papers, and the rest can take English 101 or their local equivalent.

You rightfully argue that the result would be a mumbo-jumbo of ideas, both good and bad, without rhyme or reason. But is that not what "human knowledge" as a whole looks like?

We have a wonderful opportunity to catalogue mankind'd widely divergent ideas into a worldwide electronic medium. That will not be an encyclopedia, but it will probably be closer to Right than something from Microsoft Press.

Respectfully.

Chris Mahan





From: Jimmy Wales <address@hidden>

Christopher Mahan wrote:
> Pressure such a project could face: Competing products, lawsuits, loss of > qualified staff, denial-of-service attacks, copyright infringement lawsuits
> (all it takes is one), that sort of thing.

*nod*  Risks I'm prepared to take.  If I was afraid of all of those things,
I would never have started my own company.  :-)

> Contact a copyright attorney for futher info on that, for the project's
> sake.

We have attorneys.  We've been in the web business for years.  Trust me,
we know what we are doing.

> Ok. About reviewers. Let's say you get this great article, but you can't
> really edit it yourself or check its fact because it's outside of your areas
> of expertise.

This is almost always the case, to be sure.  In fact, as it currently
stands, I don't personally do *any* of the reviewing, and Larry only does
a little, in his area (philosophy).

> Then you look for qualified reviewers, and you find a couple
> that would do it great, but they want $300-$500 to do it. What do you do?
> Shelve the article? Cough up the dough? This could get expensive.

We don't pay reviewers, we find volunteers.  So far, there is no shortage
of volunteers.

> On the "you're biased" bit, you could have a Jewish group that says: do you
> have any Jewish reviewers? The NAACP might want to find out if there are
> colored people on staff. The Asian League might want to know if you have
> asians on staff. The Christians might want to know if you... The Muslims... > the Japanese... the Germans... the French (God forbid!)... the Republicans,
> the Democrats, the Green, the Reds, the Feds... Hark!!! The British are
> Coming!!!

It is of course true that people might behave in that fashion.  What can we
do about it? I think that the only thing we can do is to be open, be welcoming
to all.

Do you intend this to be a specific comment on some specific policy of ours, or merely a general rant about the difficulty of doing anything at all in a litigious and politically correct age? If the latter, then, well I'm certainly sympathetic, but I still press onward. We'll deal with those things as best we can whenever
they do come up.

But if you feel that there is some specific policy of ours which doesn't sufficiently address the possibility for bias against Jewish people, Asian people, etc., then let's
discuss that specifically, because if that's true then we need to change.

> And that was one of the original arguments about the GNE. As long as there
> is any type of editorial control, there will be accusations of bias.

But without any editorial control at all, then you are guaranteed to be biased. When a member of the KKK writes an irrational rant against the genetic deficiencies of Africans, and when GNE posts that article without comment, then you are *certainly* going to have people complaining (and rightly so!) about giving a platform for evil people. Richard Stallman points out that he would not have an article denying the
holocaust on his servers -- and I think he's right.

Far from providing an opportunity for people to scream about bias, having a good review process *helps reduce* the likelihood and legitimacy of those complaints. We can answer them by saying: "Look, we have an open review process. If you want to see an article changed, or if you want to add to an article, you can join the
review process yourself."

> Now note that GNE is not really meant to be an encyclopedia in the first
> place.

I understand what you are saying.

--Jimbo

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com




reply via email to

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