[Bug-gne]Right/Wrong if editorship in GNE/Nupedia

[Tom Chance]

I agree with you entirely on the right/wrong point.
That is why I think the idea of a totally uncensored,
unedited resource as GNE will be is so exciting. But
there is a point behind having a "right/wrong"
encyclopedia as Jimmy and the Nupedia team are
building. It will be made obvious on Nupedia that
articles are edited. If you read an article, and think
that it is perhaps biased, you can go to GNE to read
up on a whole host of differing articles on the topic.
So you will be able to access a succint "definition"
of a subject, and an in-depth analysis that will
hopefully transcend all cultural and ideological
boundaries.

My only worry is that people often don't realise bias
(like the US press' bias towards US foreign policy).
So that if people go to Nupedia they might read an
article and not even think to go and look it up in GNE
too, and so GNE may be underused. I would have thought
it'd be helpful to, sometime in the future, work out a
system of linking in each article to relevant stuff in
GNE->Nupedia or Nupedia->GNE.

Tom Chance 


--- Christopher Mahan <address@hidden> wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-gne mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gne


=====
"True security is to be found in social solidarity rather than in isolated 
individual effort - Fyodor Dostoyevsky"

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/