Re: [Bug-gnupedia]Changes to articles

[Tom Chance]

> Who is to determine what is blatantly obvious spam? 
> One author may
> view an article about his company to be completely
> objective and
> neutral and worthwhile, while you may view it as
> spam... particularly
> if it touts the superiority of the author's
> company's product.

Hence to have an open system that won't be open to
this sort of treatment, you have no "reject" vote. You
simply need a certain number of "yes" votes within a
certain amount of time (say 2 votes in 8 days) to let
an article in. It may be too open, but its worth a try
to start with. It gives sufficient difference in
moderation approach to Nupedia as well.


> How about articles about travel, prepared by travel
> agents, and
> publicizing only the destinations and resorts that
> are favored by
> the agent?  These can be potentially very
> informative, so are
> they spam?  Only if they are _blatant_ somehow?
> 
> The problem is that your definition is a
> non-definition.  It gives
> no method or system whereby we might objectively
> determine what to
> do in a wide range of borderline cases.

That's the story with a lot of posts here. A lof of
ideas with no clue of implementation, the practicality
involved etc.

Tom Chance

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