Subject: (urth) urth Digest, Vol 22, Issue 21

From: Jonathan & Rachel Laidlow <ultan01 at yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 20:37:38 +0000

I wonder whether a wiki is really what is needed.
Surely a wiki purports to a level of certainty on a
par with an encyclopedic or other authoritative
discourses such as dictionaries. How can we be certain
that the interpretation in the wiki is correct? It is
only an interpretation, after all. What is to stop the
next person who edits it from changing your
interpretation beyond all recognition? 

Furthermore - what's wrong with searching the urth
mailing lists? I found some fantastic discussion of
"the Tree is my Hat" here when I found myself asking
questions earlier this month.

J

___________________________________________________________ 
Copy addresses and emails from any email account to Yahoo! Mail - quick, easy and free. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/trueswitch2.html

---

From: Daniel D Jones <ddjones at riddlemaster.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 21:10:06 +0000

On Saturday 24 June 2006 16:37, Jonathan & Rachel Laidlow wrote:
> only an interpretation, after all.

I think you're confusing the concept of a wiki with Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is a 
wiki implementation of an encyclopedia.  It primarily deals with facts, and 
strives to be correct.  A wiki is nothing more than an browser-editable web 
page.  It's no more necessarily concerned with objective facts than is any 
other web page.  You could think of the Lupine wiki as a group blog if you 
like, and there's ample evidence that blogs are under no requirement to be 
based on objective facts.

>What is to stop the

Absolutely nothing.  And there's nothing to prevent you from changing it back.  
Generally speaking, in cases where there are competing opinions, both should 
be presented along with any evidence supporting that case.  If vandalism 
and/or contentiousness becomes an issue, portions of the wiki can usually be 
locked down or editing privileges restricted to logged-in members, and those 
who refuse to "play nice" can have their membership removed.

> questions earlier this month.

Absolutely nothing is wrong with searching the mailing lists, but the two 
approaches are more complementary than they are in competition.  A wiki 
offers a great many advantages that a mailing list doesn't afford.  For 
example, I mentioned I'm just finishing up "The Island of Doctor Death..."  
If a wiki were in place, it would only take me a few moment to create a stub 
page for each story in the book.  (Assuming, of course, that the wiki is just 
getting off the ground and such pages don't already exist.)  A month later, 
while browsing the wiki, you might see that one of the stories has nothing 
posted on its page.  That reminds you of something that you really liked 
about the story and you post a few comments.  Two months later, someone else 
reads your comments and adds a few of his own.  This sort of thing is 
extremely unlikely to happen in a mailing list.  Unlike a mailing 
list, "threads" never die on a wiki.

---

From: JWillard <aldenweer at charter.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 21:56:35 +0000

Jonathan & Rachel Laidlow wrote:

>_______________________________________________
>Urth Mailing List
>To post, write urth at urth.net
>Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
>  
>
First and foremost, I think we want a gathering place of information.  
If someone wants to know Thecla's eye color, it would be there, with a 
reference to where the quote is that says that.  I believe we all have 
copies of the book and we're all pretty anal about checking information 
we are looking at.  (Not to mention, all reading is interpretive.  If I 
do an entry on Kurtz from Heart of Darkness in Wikipedia, can I truly 
present a perfect unbiased thumbnail?)  Knowing the people on this list, 
I think everyone would be pretty quick to slam someone who presented 
something without textual evidence.  Severian cuts of Morwenna's head:  
any arguments?  Maybe someone could argue that *Thecla* cuts off 
Morwenna's head - that would have to go under a theoretical entry.

But a wiki could separate information, speculation, etc.  If someone 
wanted to read about the multiple Severian theory, that could be a 
sub-entry in the theory section, with quotes from the book defending 
that theory's advancement.

And I don't think anyone plans for this to replace the mailing list.  If 
anything, we'd like them to supplement each other.

I know I feel like a dog chasing its tail, bouncing from one place to 
the next - and the Wolfe oevre is pretty extensive now.  It would be 
nice to have a tool to start gathering so many straggling 
ideas/details.  But, obviously such a tool would not be compulsory, and 
one is always free to explore the works independently.  I don't really 
understand some of the emails against the project that seem to sound 
threatened by it.  No one here has a whip!