(urth) Wiki draft proposal
jsvedberg at gmail.com
Wed May 10 02:31:45 PDT 2006
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.
More information about the Urth