Re: [Bug-gne]the problem of illegal content vs. freedom

[Bob Dodd]

> > Nupedia is already doing that very well. Go and work
> > with them, give Jimbo a hand because they need a lot
> > of help too. What is the point in duplicating Nupedia?
> > So this Free Learning Resource would have two
> > sub-resources with almost identical policy but a
> > slightly different classification and frontend.
> > Pointless.
> 
> Perhaps I will. 

I hope you don't. Well, not exclusively anyway :-)) Both GNE and
Nupedia have, or should I say will have, an editorial policy, though
with differences in style and emphasis. The basics of both policies
must, by definition be the same: content format, submissions system,
citations, language support etc. OK the details will be different, but
the principal is the same. Both sets of policies will also stay within
the law. Both sets of policies will also have some definition of
acceptable taste, though again the boundary may be set a little
different (but I hope by not much...). Both policies will also deal
with revisionist & novel theories on life, the universe and everything,
though again with different approaches to context & presentation of
such material. Finally, what makes Nupedia Nupedia, is its policy on
accuracy and the importance of peer review: except for truly glaring
errors, I assume GNE will leave accuracy concerns to its
rating/classification mechanism. 

So, unless your worry is about accuracy, or where (if ever...) the
boundaries of taste and decency finally get set on GNE, I don't see any
reason to walk away from GNE. GNE and Nupedia are two aspects of the
same freedom of speech. OK they are different in terms of their
breadth, depth, and accuracy (in an academic sense anyway), but they
both need support.

> However, before I do, I'd like to find out who makes
> the
> policy decisions for GNE. Is is *really* those who are the most
> "vocal" on
> this mailing list?  How much difference will all the posturing make
> at the
> end of the day?
> 
> It's a serious question .. who gets to decide what articles are
> accepted or
> rejected, or even the overriding policy which GNE adheres to.

Yes it is a serious question, I've asked it of Hector before. I'm not
sure you're going to like the answer...

As far as I can tell, this is a GNU project which means in reality it's
a Richard Stallman project, and the bottom line is that unless you can
convince him of your idea, then it's a very dead idea. The daily
management of the project is done by Hector on Stallman's behalf. All
major decisions (I suspect) Hector refers to Stallman. We talk amongst
ourselves until either we reach a consensus, or Hector makes the
decision for us, possibly deferring to Stallman if the issue really is
contentious. If a small numer of people are clearly interested in a
specific problem, Hector may solicit detailed advice from them. To
summarize, it's Richard Stallman's project, and he really appreciates
any help and advice we can give him. 

Basically it's more feudal king than athenian democracy, but it's also
pretty common for this sort of project. So I guess you either accept
the rules of the game, or you take your ball home... The only thing
that gives projects of this nature any semblance of democracy is (1)
you can choose not to participate, (2) if enough of you hold the same
opinions, you can fork the project (thanks to the GPL), (3) you can
create a consensus on the mailing lists that Hector and Richard would
find hard to reject.

/Bob Dodd


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/