stevertigo wrote:
David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
neutrality does not exist.
[[WP:NPOV]]??
Just because one strives for neutrality does not mean that one ever
achieves it.
it is
impossible to work intelligently on a subject without
developing a view about the disputed questions.
Well, Sourcewallas don't need to work intelligently, really. We
already have lots of functions that similarly avoid the use of
unnecessary intelligence - speedy deletion of subspace drafts, for
example. So it's not an editorial concept as much as it is a
gathering concept, and the role is not so much an editorial role but
one of interface.
Subspace drafts are usually associated with Star Trek or a poorly
insulated crawl space under one's house. ;-)
Am I interpreting your neologism "sourcewallahs" /(sp!)/ correctly? I'm
reading it as individuals who randomly attach sources for material
without regard to its relevance.
One has to be
aware of ones biases and know the devices for
overcoming them.
I understand both bias and device, but I don't think these are really
all that relevant if we can still AGF a little bit. Roles help keep
things simple, and applying concepts of principle to simple roles
means that any deviations can be detected without much subjectivity
involved.
Redundancy can work too - there is no need to rely on just one
sourcewalla. And in any case good people can keep each other honest if
their collective mode of function is one of openness.
One assumes good faith by
recognizing that the other may not be aware if
his own biases. Being too vigorous about shaking the tree of his biases
may only serve to expose one's own biases. In the myth of Adam and Eve
Adam would have been unable to move forward if Eve had not shaken down
that one fruit. Shaking the tree too vigorously could have brought a
rain of fruit to drive Adam away ... this is the same effect as going
all-in prematurely with a good poker hand.
Ec