Wiki draft proposal

maru dubshinki · 15 May 2006, 07:20 · 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: marudubshinki at gmail.com (maru dubshinki)
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 03:20:31 -0400
Subject: (urth) Wiki draft proposal
In-Reply-To: <000a01c673ff$251dc300$433ec6d8 at rclackey.stic.net>
References: <000a01c673ff$251dc300$433ec6d8 at rclackey.stic.net>
Message-ID: <f5238c30605150020u4c63c679mc4788be936505909 at mail.gmail.com>

\On 5/10/06, Roy C. Lackey <rclackey at stic.net> wrote:
>
> Jesper wrote:
> > - Theories and facts should be clearly separated. If there are
> >theories about a subject, there should be a "Theories" section in the
> >article with short descriptions of the theories and links to the
> >separate articles.
>
> What is fictive fact and what is theory -- and who decides? Is it a fact
> that Weer is dead, or that Dorcas is Severian's grandmother? These two
> cases
> are not that controversial; consensus is that they are facts, but that is
> only a consensus. Did Weer really have constructed such an edifice as his
> Memory House, or did it exist only in his head? It's been argued both
> ways.
> Fact or theory?


There are always going to be boundary problems, Roy. I don't think they're
serious enough to really be an impediment.

[snip]
> > - 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.


Well, why would we bother summarizing such posts into a wiki article if they
were so truly excreable?

-Roy
>
>
~maru
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20060515/f2ca780c/attachment.html

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