Wiki draft proposal

Daniel D Jones · 10 May 2006, 11:31 · from 2006-May.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: ddjones at riddlemaster.org (Daniel D Jones)
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 07:31:20 -0400
Subject: (urth) Wiki draft proposal
In-Reply-To: <4461B301.5000303 at gmail.com>
References: <000a01c673ff$251dc300$433ec6d8 at rclackey.stic.net>
	<4461B301.5000303 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200605100731.20698.ddjones at riddlemaster.org>

On Wednesday 10 May 2006 05:31, Jesper Svedberg wrote:
> Roy C. Lackey skrev:
> > Jesper wrote:
> >> - One thing that must be discussed is the problem of the sender. In
> >>Wikipedia, the articles are presented as facts and the sender is
> >>considered secondary, but if someone writes an article theorizing about
> >>a subject in the WolfeWiki, then it might be wise to clearly mark out
> >>who the writer/sender is.
> >
> > At the very least. I've seen some theories on this List better aired in
> > an outhouse. I've made posts I wish I could take back -- but I can't.
> > It's one thing to think out loud in public in a relatively small forum
> > such as this, but it's a very different thing to have such thoughts
> > presented with a presumption of authority or even credibility to a larger
> > audience. I don't know that much about Wikipedia, but if Whomever's
> > opinions are presented there as facts, then it is useless as an
> > authority, and I could never in good conscience cite it as such.
> > Democracy is a wonderful ideal, but not all opinions are equal.
>
> This is what I'm talking about when I want to separate theory from fact.
> You are right that in some (perhaps many) cases, it isn't clear where
> the line goes between speculation and what can be agreed upon as being a
> fact, but considering how wild some of the theories here are it's at
> least worth trying to keep these two things apart. Maybe it isn't
> interesting who created a theory, but it's at least interesting to make
> clear that this is one person's idea of how to interpret the text.

This is one of the advantages of a Wiki.  If you read something presented as 
fact that you feel isn't proven, just do a quick edit to insert a few "Some 
people think..." and "It can be argued that..." type statements.

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net