[Wikipedia-l] A few comments about Wikipedia

[Larry Sanger]

From: "Jimmy Wales" <jwales at aristotle.bomis.com>
> Timothy Shell wrote:
> > 1.  If Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, then it probably is not
> > appropriate to have threaded discussions on a subject page.  See for
> > example AlTruism, where one person gives a flame bait description of
the
> > concept, and numerous people then argue back about that description.
If a
> > discussion is approptiate, perhaps there should be a standard
discussion
> > page, as AltruismDiscussion or AltruismDebate, that is linked to
from the
> > subject page.
>
> There is already a cultural tradition in the wiki world called
> "refactoring".  The idea is that there is a "discussion mode" and
> a "document mode".  In discussion mode, people have a threaded
discussion,
> with many different issues being raised.
>
> Then, some WikiMaster comes through after the discussion has died
> down, and "refactors" the page.  This involves editing/rewriting/
> rearranging, so that all points of view are presented fairly.

Well, I'm not sure that the history of wiki is relevant here, because we
are, after all, making an attempt at creating an encyclopedia, and
therefore we're making some attempt at being unbiased in our entries.
This is especially crucial in that this is a collaborative endeavor.
How can a collaborative endeavor *not* have a nonbias policy?

To respect this policy, I think people should feel free to edit main
articles, such as the controversial GeorgeWBush article, but also add to
corresponding discussion pages--linked from the bottom of the page.
That's what I did for GeorgeWBush; I made BushTalk and moved the
discussion there.  As issues get resolved, or positions harden, in
BushTalk, the controversy can be described (not engaged, but described)
on GeorgeWBush.

So I agree with Tim, as you can see.

Larry