A great, free encyclopedia - WikiEN-l

14 Sep 2004


      Let's not confuse goal with method (or ends with means): I don't agree
that the goal is "a great, neutral encyclopedia".
Rather, the goal is a "a great, free encyclopedia" and the METHOD OF
PRODUCTION is:
* to let anyone, anytime, edit any article; and,
* not to take sides on controversial issues
Either of these primary methods can be set aside, if it interferes with
the GOAL. We restrict some contributors (via bans) or some articles (via
'protection'). And as consensus develops on shared values we might even
set aside the restriction on taking sides.
For example, regarding [[terrorism]] the consensus is that it is "bad"
(in an absolute moral sense) to shoot children in the back as they run
away from gunmen who have taken over their school. Of course, we don't
say, "Those evil men murdered the children", because a matter of policy
we are writing the [[Beslan school massacre]] article with NPOV. But if
no one raised a significant objection, we *could* call it evil.
Our official mandate from Jimbo is the philosophy of WikiLove: i.e.,
consideration for others. In our dealings with one another on this
mailing list, it's mandatory: be nice, or be elsewhere (violators have
been exiled).
This dovetails with the Unification Church idea of "living for the sake
of others"; it's also consistent with the church's official definition
of Good as "benefiting others" and Evil as "taking advantage of another
for one's own benefit".
It's possible that Wikipedia could one day adopt an absolute value
perspective based on these ideas -- and STILL be "a great, free
encyclopedia".