Re: [Bug-gnupedia]Changes to articles

[Bob Dodd]

--- Jimmy Wales <address@hidden> wrote:
[snip]
> 
> Additionally, one unintended side effect is that the GNE may become
> a repository for completely unusably biased texts.  There are
> controversial
> topics with authors willing to go to great lengths to slam one
> another.
> 
> Scientology is a good example.  There are heated opinions on both
> sides.  Will you permit them to revise and re-revise each others
> articles endlessly, and allow all the revisions sequentially into
> your repository?
> 
> What of holocaust deniers, or even holocaust *supporters*?  Is their
> view to be given equal weight with that of serious historians? 
> Suppose 
> they seek to re-edit and re-submit every article written on their
> pet topics?
> 
> I'm not saying that these are insurmountable problems -- I am just
> saying that they are real problems that an "only remove blatant
> spam" doesn't address.
 
It's why I'm so against people having the right to *edit* other
author's work. If you have something to say on a subject, create your
own entry and cite (or include and amend, though that just seems like a
waste of good disk space...) other works as necessary. It doesn't
censor anyone, but at least you can avoid the worst excesses of
"flip-flop" updates to an article. 

Of course to make this work, you need to know the author, even if
that's as simple as people receiving a random number when they submit
an article that they can then use as a "key" to edit their entry.
It'snot exactly digial signatures, but its simple and effective (we're
not dealing with money here), and most people could handle it.

/Bob Dodd


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