Re: [Bug-gne]How Nupedia solves this

[Bob Dodd]

--- Jimmy Wales <address@hidden> wrote:
[snip]
> 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.
[snip]

So, assuming one day Nupedia writes an entry on the Holocaust, what
will it say happened? Will the article say "Six million jews died, many
of them deliberately gassed; a small minority disagrees about the
accuracy of these facts", or will it say "Some people say six million
jews died, and that many of them were deliberately gassed"?

The problem with being "unbiased", is that you end up either taking a
"balanced" view which itself requires you to choose what is mainstream
and what is extreme, or you end up cataloging primary and secondary
evidence, afraid to even suggest linkage between the items for fear of
bias.

To be honest, I would have thought Nupedia will be as eccentrically
"unbiased" as most academic encyclopedias are, where "unbiased" is what
you call the output of peer review, with that output dependent upon the
thoughts and opinions of the random sample of peer-reviewers you
started with.
 
I'm not criticising the peer review process, or the individuals
concerned, I just don't think you can claim lack of bias in your
articles, just eccentricity :-) I also don't think you can do any
better if you want a single entry on a particular topic (or even if you
choose the selection of writers for the subject: your own selection
will be eccentric too).

/Bob Dodd
 




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices! 
http://auctions.yahoo.com/