Sascha Noyes wrote:
LOL. I have my doubts about the sanity of forking wikipedia. Why would you fork wikipedia so that you can have an encyclopedia with a Personal POV? And: What if someone comes along who has an opposite POV from your own, they don't have to adhere to NPOV, so what are you going to do? Ban them?
Actually, I think it could work. The NPOV works pretty well for Wikipedia, but even it requires a certain amount of enforcement and peer pressure to make it work. The mere idea of making Wikipedia an "encyclopedia" also requires discipline, and enforcing that rule has been possible even though you get a few people who refuse to abide by the guidelines. I don't see any reason to assume that an encyclopedia *has* to have a neutral point of view to succeed. NPOV is only one among multiple possible points of view. Someday maybe there'll be a Commiepedia frequented by leftists, a Nazipedia, a Christipedia, an Intifadipedia, an Agnostipedia...
For that matter, there might be different wikipedias devoted to specialized topics: e.g., a "litipedia" devoted to literature, or a "medipedia" devoted to medical information.
I'm not saying this has to happen or that it should happen, but I don't think there's any reason to assume that it *can't*.
Sheldon Rampton wrote:
I don't see any reason to assume that an encyclopedia *has* to have a neutral point of view to succeed. NPOV is only one among multiple possible points of view. Someday maybe there'll be a Commiepedia frequented by leftists, a Nazipedia, a Christipedia, an Intifadipedia, an Agnostipedia...
I think that's probably right. Such sites would probably have to be setup so that only logged-in users can edit, and logins are only granted to people who apply. And *then*, a form of "NPOV" (Nazi point of view?) could be used to resolve intra-group disputes.
Our success, though, is in part because we're able to get a large number of people together, i.e. it's really easy to start working, and because even people of fairly widely divergent political, religious, etc. viewpoints can "buy into" NPOV.
I've brainstormed that it could be possible to set up a site devoted to a particular "hot topic", say gun rights, and have articles written wiki-style both "pro" and "con". But what a nightmare to administer. It seems easier to me (and more useful, likely) to have an in-depth website on a topic like that where all parties are morally committed to NPOV.
One thing that's great about wikipedia is that there are tons and tons of topics that just aren't really controversial at all. I mean, what kind of flame war can really develop about the names of rivers? (Er, uh... *wink*)
--Jimbo
For that matter, there might be different wikipedias devoted to specialized topics: e.g., a "litipedia" devoted to literature, or a "medipedia" devoted to medical information.
I'm not saying this has to happen or that it should happen, but I don't think there's any reason to assume that it *can't*.
Ah, the "victim of its own success syndrome" rears its ugly head at Wikipedia...-Stevertigo
Stevertigo wrote:
For that matter, there might be different wikipedias devoted to specialized topics: e.g., a "litipedia" devoted to literature, or a "medipedia" devoted to medical information.
I'm not saying this has to happen or that it should happen, but I don't think there's any reason to assume that it *can't*.
Ah, the "victim of its own success syndrome" rears its ugly head at Wikipedia...-Stevertigo
it could come in handy. next time we have a violent NPOV edit war, direct the participants to the IE (lousy acronym!), and let them work on two separate POV articles. Then a committed NPOV wikipedian can come along & cream off some sort of synthesis of the opposing POVs.
Still... if it's not NPOV...
http://www.internet-encyclopedia.info/wiki.phtml?title=Religion
;-)
Im wondering when Sheldon was going to tell us about this: http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml
Info: http://www.prwatch.org/spin/March_2003.html#1047445200
That's not a fork, he's just using our software for his project. He's been very open about this interest all along.
It's not an encyclopedia, and it's not NPOV. Neither of those are criticisms, either!
--Jimbo