Re: [Bug-gnupedia] Separating content from presentation

[Mike Warren]

Bob Dodd <address@hidden> writes:

> > There is a difference between accepting all *reasonable*
> > submissions (i.e.  well-written, factually-correct) and accepting
> > *all* submissions. Clearly, some articles may leave out certain
> > facts if it serves the interest of her views, but others will
> > presumably write in with corrections, etcetera.  One doesn't have
> > to accept *all* submissions to accept all *views*.

> "Well written?" Well... OK, but I challenge you to define "well
> written" and get the overwhelming majority to agree it :-))

Fair enough; subjective term.

> "Factually correct", I think you'll have more problems
> with...

If there is evidence for something, there's evidence for it. Sure,
some references may be more suspect than others, but it's pretty easy
to tell if something has been well-researched (i.e. there's credible
support for the points presented) or not.

> Question (2): what happened at Tianemen Square.

It's not hard to merely present accounts from various people involved,
not unlike a newspaper story. Certainly, such a thing can be written
in a biased manner, but it can also be written in a largely unbiased
manner.

> Question 4, should creation theory have the same status as
> evolution?

Status? This isn't something which should be in an encyclopedia.  One
might have an entry on creationism (which isn't a scientific theory
anyway, although I suppose one might call it a theory) and include any
pertinent references, but writing an essay detailing why one thinks
creationism should have the same ``status'' as evolution is not
something I'd expect in an encyclopedia. In a free collection of
documents? Certainly.

> Question 5: were jews gassed at Auschwitz?

Again, the available evidence for the ``yes'' and ``no'' camps can be
presented. The value of an editable electronic encyclopedia is that
new (credible) evidence can easily be incorporated into the articles.

> The only way you can be fair about this is to allow all (real)
> *views*, however mad or insulting to the intelligence they may
> appear, and then allow the cataloging folks to do their
> job.

I'm not saying such a collection wouldn't be useful, but I disagree
that it's an ``encyclopedia'' in the classic sense. I think this
project has already morphed into a collection of free documents rather
than an encyclopedia, so I'm probably just wasting my bandwidth ;)

Don't get me wrong: such a collection would still be extremely
valuable.

-- 
address@hidden
<URL:http://www.mike-warren.com>
GPG: 0x579911BD :: 87F2 4D98 BDB0 0E90 EE2A  0CF9 1087 0884 5799 11BD