{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/4657", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 4657, "subject": "urth Digest, Vol 22, Issue 21", "messages": 3, "voices": 3, "first": "2006-06-24T20:37:38+00:00", "last": "2006-06-24T21:56:35+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "<20060624203738.55811.qmail@web27814.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Jonathan & Rachel Laidlow", "address": "ultan01 at yahoo.co.uk" }, "date": "2006-06-24T20:37:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) urth Digest, Vol 22, Issue 21", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I wonder whether a wiki is really what is needed.\nSurely a wiki purports to a level of certainty on a\npar with an encyclopedic or other authoritative\ndiscourses such as dictionaries. How can we be certain\nthat the interpretation in the wiki is correct? It is\nonly an interpretation, after all. What is to stop the\nnext person who edits it from changing your\ninterpretation beyond all recognition? \n\nFurthermore - what's wrong with searching the urth\nmailing lists? I found some fantastic discussion of\n\"the Tree is my Hat\" here when I found myself asking\nquestions earlier this month.\n\nJ\n\n\n\t\t" } ] }, { "message_id": "<200606241710.06688.ddjones@riddlemaster.org>", "from": { "name": "Daniel D Jones", "address": "ddjones at riddlemaster.org" }, "date": "2006-06-24T21:10:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) urth Digest, Vol 22, Issue 21", "in_reply_to": "<20060624203738.55811.qmail@web27814.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Saturday 24 June 2006 16:37, Jonathan & Rachel Laidlow wrote:\nI wonder whether a wiki is really what is needed.\nSurely a wiki purports to a level of certainty on a\npar with an encyclopedic or other authoritative\ndiscourses such as dictionaries. How can we be certain\nthat the interpretation in the wiki is correct? It is\nonly an interpretation, after all." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think you're confusing the concept of a wiki with Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a \nwiki implementation of an encyclopedia. It primarily deals with facts, and \nstrives to be correct. A wiki is nothing more than an browser-editable web \npage. It's no more necessarily concerned with objective facts than is any \nother web page. You could think of the Lupine wiki as a group blog if you \nlike, and there's ample evidence that blogs are under no requirement to be \nbased on objective facts." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "What is to stop the\nnext person who edits it from changing your\ninterpretation beyond all recognition?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Absolutely nothing. And there's nothing to prevent you from changing it back. \nGenerally speaking, in cases where there are competing opinions, both should \nbe presented along with any evidence supporting that case. If vandalism \nand/or contentiousness becomes an issue, portions of the wiki can usually be \nlocked down or editing privileges restricted to logged-in members, and those \nwho refuse to \"play nice\" can have their membership removed." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Furthermore - what's wrong with searching the urth\nmailing lists? I found some fantastic discussion of\n\"the Tree is my Hat\" here when I found myself asking\nquestions earlier this month." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Absolutely nothing is wrong with searching the mailing lists, but the two \napproaches are more complementary than they are in competition. A wiki \noffers a great many advantages that a mailing list doesn't afford. For \nexample, I mentioned I'm just finishing up \"The Island of Doctor Death...\" \nIf a wiki were in place, it would only take me a few moment to create a stub \npage for each story in the book. (Assuming, of course, that the wiki is just \ngetting off the ground and such pages don't already exist.) A month later, \nwhile browsing the wiki, you might see that one of the stories has nothing \nposted on its page. That reminds you of something that you really liked \nabout the story and you post a few comments. Two months later, someone else \nreads your comments and adds a few of his own. This sort of thing is \nextremely unlikely to happen in a mailing list. Unlike a mailing \nlist, \"threads\" never die on a wiki." } ] }, { "message_id": "<449DB513.7090303@charter.net>", "from": { "name": "JWillard", "address": "aldenweer at charter.net" }, "date": "2006-06-24T21:56:35+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Whorl Wikied Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "<20060624203738.55811.qmail@web27814.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Jonathan & Rachel Laidlow wrote:\nI wonder whether a wiki is really what is needed.\nSurely a wiki purports to a level of certainty on a\npar with an encyclopedic or other authoritative\ndiscourses such as dictionaries. How can we be certain\nthat the interpretation in the wiki is correct? It is\nonly an interpretation, after all. What is to stop the\nnext person who edits it from changing your\ninterpretation beyond all recognition? \n\nFurthermore - what's wrong with searching the urth\nmailing lists? I found some fantastic discussion of\n\"the Tree is my Hat\" here when I found myself asking\nquestions earlier this month.\n\nJ\n\n\n\t\n___________________________________________________________ \nCopy addresses and emails from any email account to Yahoo! Mail - quick, easy and free. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/trueswitch2.html\n_______________________________________________\nUrth Mailing List\nTo post, write urth at urth.net\nSubscription/information: http://www.urth.net\n\n " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "First and foremost, I think we want a gathering place of information. \nIf someone wants to know Thecla's eye color, it would be there, with a \nreference to where the quote is that says that. I believe we all have \ncopies of the book and we're all pretty anal about checking information \nwe are looking at. (Not to mention, all reading is interpretive. If I \ndo an entry on Kurtz from Heart of Darkness in Wikipedia, can I truly \npresent a perfect unbiased thumbnail?) Knowing the people on this list, \nI think everyone would be pretty quick to slam someone who presented \nsomething without textual evidence. Severian cuts of Morwenna's head: \nany arguments? Maybe someone could argue that *Thecla* cuts off \nMorwenna's head - that would have to go under a theoretical entry.\n\nBut a wiki could separate information, speculation, etc. If someone \nwanted to read about the multiple Severian theory, that could be a \nsub-entry in the theory section, with quotes from the book defending \nthat theory's advancement.\n\nAnd I don't think anyone plans for this to replace the mailing list. If \nanything, we'd like them to supplement each other.\n\nI know I feel like a dog chasing its tail, bouncing from one place to \nthe next - and the Wolfe oevre is pretty extensive now. It would be \nnice to have a tool to start gathering so many straggling \nideas/details. But, obviously such a tool would not be compulsory, and \none is always free to explore the works independently. I don't really \nunderstand some of the emails against the project that seem to sound \nthreatened by it. No one here has a whip!" } ] } ] }