[Bug-gne]How Nupedia solves this

[Jimmy Wales]

Nupedia solves this problem quite elegantly.  This can be done for us
because we _are_ an encyclopedia, not a general wide open repository
of texts.

Nupedia does not censor any point of view, but Nupedia also does not
permit people to _forward_ or _advance_ any point of view.  No
articles in Nupedia, because it is an encyclopedia, will be articles
of _advocacy_.

All of the facts can be presented, because it is the easiest thing in
the world to present facts in a neutral manner.  In the case of
controversies, an article should not report on what _is the case_
(since that may be controversial), but on _what people believe_.

Nupedia could have an article about holocaust deniers, or about
racists, or about pedophiles, but it would not -- will not -- advocate
for those things.

I think that _this_ is the distinction that people are trying to get
at with the idea of permitting only "informative" articles.

Contrary to some of the people on this list, I do not think that
editorship is anything like censorship.  It is not a "good" form of
censorship.  It is not the same kind of thing at all.

A Marxist could write an article for Nupedia about capitalism, but that
article would have to be _unbiased_.  Even a Marxist can do that, without
any compromise of his or her "principles".  It might be emotionally hard,
but it is not _conceptually_ hard.

This solution is not of much use to GNE, of course.  GNE wants to be
something different.  (Something useless, I think, at least if some
people have their way, but that's a different story.)  GNE is not concerned
with truth, accuracy, or objectivity.  GNE wants to achieve lack of bias
through embracing all bias.

Still, as you think through these issues, you can consider the Nupedia policy
and how it might shed some conceptual light on the issues.  You don't censor
a view by failing to permit _advocacy_ of it on your servers.  It is possible
to present virtually _any_ view in a matter of fact way, with supporting 
arguments
and all, without _advocating_ it.

And that's morally the right thing to do, if what you seek is fairness.

--Jimbo

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