(urth) Wiki draft proposal

[Daniel D Jones]

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.