\On 5/10/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Roy C. Lackey</b> <<a href="mailto:rclackey@stic.net">rclackey@stic.net</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Jesper wrote:<br>> - Theories and facts should be clearly separated. If there are<br>>theories about a subject, there should be a "Theories" section in the<br>>article with short descriptions of the theories and links to the
<br>>separate articles.<br><br>What is fictive fact and what is theory -- and who decides? Is it a fact<br>that Weer is dead, or that Dorcas is Severian's grandmother? These two cases<br>are not that controversial; consensus is that they are facts, but that is
<br>only a consensus. Did Weer really have constructed such an edifice as his<br>Memory House, or did it exist only in his head? It's been argued both ways.<br>Fact or theory?</blockquote><div><br>There are always going to be boundary problems, Roy. I don't think they're serious enough to really be an impediment.
<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">[snip]<br>> - One thing that must be discussed is the problem of the sender. In
<br>>Wikipedia, the articles are presented as facts and the sender is<br>>considered secondary, but if someone writes an article theorizing about<br>>a subject in the WolfeWiki, then it might be wise to clearly mark out
<br>>who the writer/sender is.<br><br>At the very least. I've seen some theories on this List better aired in an<br>outhouse. I've made posts I wish I could take back -- but I can't. It's one<br>thing to think out loud in public in a relatively small forum such as this,
<br>but it's a very different thing to have such thoughts presented with a<br>presumption of authority or even credibility to a larger audience. I don't<br>know that much about Wikipedia, but if Whomever's opinions are presented
<br>there as facts, then it is useless as an authority, and I could never in<br>good conscience cite it as such. Democracy is a wonderful ideal, but not all<br>opinions are equal.</blockquote><div><br>Well, why would we bother summarizing such posts into a wiki article if they were so truly excreable?
<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">-Roy<br><br></blockquote></div><br>~maru<br>