Wouter Steenbeek wrote:
Steve's proposal is interesting and can be defended from a philosophical point of view. Indeed most philosophers involved with science agree that objectivity is an illusion, and the quasi-objectivity we reach in e.g. encyclopaedias is only a broad consensus within one culture. On some topics, everyone agrees, on other ones, people hold divergent views. That justifies splitting a controversial topic.
On the other hand, the predominant culture expects encyclopaedias to reach a convergent (quasi-)objectivity and therefore both to speak with one voice on the same topic and omit statements that are generally considerd "opinions" rather than "facts", or even nonsense. For Wikipedia in a postmodern setting would have to abandon the hitherto drawn line between facts and opinions.
Therefore I oppose this idea, since it goes counter to the conventions, which are per se accepted by consensus, applying to any encyclopaedia, and will hardly be helpful to achieve the "Brittannica or better"-aim formulated by Jimbo.
Do you oppose this idea as a replacement for the current wikipedia or wikipedia system, or just think this project should never exist ?
I think that if we allow multiple branches, then neutral, highly rated articles that many people have signed off on will emerge.
Steve