Wiki

Transentient · 07 Jul 2006, 14:45 · from 2006-July.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: transentient at gmail.com (Transentient)
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 10:45:13 -0400
Subject: (urth) Wiki
In-Reply-To: <5762207.1152281905940.JavaMail.root at elwamui-rubis.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
References: <5762207.1152281905940.JavaMail.root at elwamui-rubis.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <348C77A3-8A73-465D-8E6A-6F7990DB5E2E at gmail.com>

On Jul 7, 2006, at 10:18 AM, Adam Stephanides wrote:

> Daniel D Jones wrote:
>
>> On Monday 03 July 2006 11:16, Adam Stephanides wrote:
>>> In general it's still not clear to me what the advantages are of  
>>> a wiki
>>> over, say, an FAQ or FAQs combined with a message board. In fact,  
>>> I would
>>> think a priori that a wiki would be a poor format for dealing  
>>> with Wolfe,
>>> about whose work there is so little agreement. But I could well  
>>> be wrong;
>>> it might help if I could see an example of a wiki which  
>>> successfully does
>>> what you're expecting from a Wolfe wiki.
>>
>> It's vastly different subject matter but a chain of events just  
>> led me to the
>> Wikipedia article for a Rock band called Tool.  Take a look at  
>> that article,
>> particularly section 3, called "Arguments about genre and  
>> categorization."  I
>> don't see why articles on various aspects of Wolfe's work couldn't be
>> similarly laid out.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/kdqjr
>
> I wasn't doubting that articles could be written on controversial  
> issues. Rather,  I was concerned that such articles might either  
> devolve into "editing wars" or become long and shapeless as  
> everyone tries to add their own viewpoint. And while the article  
> you cite seems to have avoided these problems, I think the danger  
> would be greater for an article about, say, the "Green is Urth"  
> theory (to mention an debate in which I was personally involved).
>

Wikipedia has for the most part survived such conflicts. I think the  
way it does this is by sticking to policies that require authors to  
keep their viewpoints neutral, and forgo the use of Wikipedia for  
original research.

If the Wolfe wiki were developed around these kinds of principals I  
think it could work. It wouldn't conflict with this list, which is  
more of a place for people's own opinions and original research.  
There shouldn't be any issues with intellectual property being  
edited, because authors should not post things that aren't sort of  
established. If it is an opinion of some group, but isn't accepted as  
fact, it shouldn't be posted as such.

I think if you lay down some ground rules for what an article in your  
wiki should or should not be, then users will respect them.

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