Comments on: Wikipedia alternative aims to be 'PBS of the Web'

New online information service seeks seal of reliability by getting acknowledged experts' approval on publicly contributed articles.

[deylat2]

I can'tbelieve the ignorance!

it seems to methatextremeright wingers, IE people who lways agree withthe fascists/neo nazis in the currentwhite house bash thelastbastion of journalistic truth in america:PBS. the reason is verysimple:Theycannot stand the lightoftruth andon theother hand lacks the intelligence to discern between the evenness of treportng by let's say Jim Lehrerandthe terrorism by Arab supporter, the late Jennings who regarded Yassir arafat as justlydeserving of hisNobel Peace prize, disregarding his building thefirst Arab terrorists networkm andthe first attack on Americans: the achile lauri incident:I mustguess thatPeterthough that pushinga 70 yearoldman in a wheelchaitr ioverboard shouldbe rewarded with both respect and a Peace prize.'N'uf said!

Space key

Not a big fan of the 'space' key, are we?

You may find that when you use it to seperate words, your posts are more legible.

[deylat2]

I can'tbelieve the ignorance!

it seems to methatextreme right wingers, IE people who always agree withthe fascists/neo nazis in the currentwhite house bash thelast bastion of journalistic truth in america:PBS. the reason is verysimple: Theycannot stand the lightoftruth andon theother hand lacks the intelligence to discern between the evenness of treportng by let's say Jim Lehrerand the terrorism by Arabs supporter, the late Jennings who regarded Yassir Arafat as justlydeserving of hisNobel Peace prize, disregarding his building thefirst Arab terrorists networkm andthe first attack on Americans: the achile lauri incident:I mustguess thatPeter though that pushinga 70 yearoldman in a wheelchaitr ioverboard shouldbe rewarded with both respect and a Peace prize.'N'uf said!Vaia con Dio Benito w.Bush!

[deylat2]

I can'tbelieve the ignorance!

it seems to methatextreme right wingers, IE people who always agree withthe fascists/neo nazis in the currentwhite house bash thelast bastion of journalistic truth in america:PBS. the reason is verysimple: Theycannot stand the light oftruth and on the other hand lacks either the intelligence orthewillingness to discern between the evenness of treporting by let's say Jim Lehrerand the terrorism by Arabs supporter, the late Peter Jennings who regarded Yassir Arafat as justlydeserving of hisNobel Peace prize, disregarding his building thefirst Arab terrorists network and the first attack on Americans: the achile laure incident:I must guess thatPeter though that pushing a 70 yearold man in a wheelchaitr ioverboard shouldbe rewarded with both respect and a Peace prize.'N'uf said!Vaia con Dio Benito w.Bush!

[Earl Benser]

Hey guy, chill out...

Take a deep breath and get you composure back. Then look around
carefully and see if you can figure out which way reality was going
when you made your left turn....

[ta bu shi da yu]

Sounds like a cool idea!

I wish Digital Universe all the best. Heck, Wikipedia will most likely cite material from it. I doubt that it will ever have an article on Exploding whales, however...

One question is: will it cover opposing points of view than the PhD editors?

I'll certainly be reading the site with a great deal of interest.

Ta bu shi da yu
Wikipedia administrator
Ta bu shi da yu

[cutler]

More on the Wikipedia Alternative

I would like to follow-up on the excellent piece by Larry Sanger.
I am Editor-in-Chief of the Encyclopedia of Earth, one the first
major initiatives of the Digital Universe. Larry Sanger is the
Senior Editor for Policy and Governance for the EoE.

The EoE will cover the environment of the Earth broadly defined,
with particular emphasis on the interaction between society and
the natural spheres of the Earth. Many of the contributors will
have Ph.Ds because they are the experts on many of the relevant
topics. However, a Ph.D. is not a universal requirement to be
qualified as an ?expert.? Topics related to the environment will
also cover law, policy, consumer issues, social issues, and
ethics, where experts will be drawn from many different
quarters, including those outside of academia. I expect a very
diverse array of contributors.

All material in the EoE?and all material maintained by Digital
Universe stewards?is free to the public and free of advertising.

How is the EoE different than Wikipedia?
1. Virtually anyone can add, delete, or change content in
Wikipedia. In the EoE, this privilige is restricted to individuals
judged by their peers to be experts in their fields according to
the Encyclopedia's governance policy.
2. Content on Wikipedia usually is determined by the equally-
weighted voices of all those who want and choose to contribute.
The EoE is part scholarly-democracy and part rigorous-
meritocracy. Democratic in the sense that many content and
governance decisions are made with input from many diverse
scholars. But the EoE is also a rigorous mertiocracy in the sense
that important, overaching editorial decisions are made by the
Senior Editors and the Topic Editors and applied to each and
every article.
3. In Wikipedia there is a view that the involvement of experts is
unnecessary. The EoE is based on the premise that input from
experts is essential to produce trustworthy information.
4. Authorship in Wikipedia is anonymous. All work in the EoE is
attributed to the individual doing it.
5. Changes to Wikipedia articles are viewable by the public
instantly. Changes to the EoE are viewable instantly by
participants, but article versions must be approved by a Topic
Editor prior to being published to the public web site.
6. Erroneous, misleading, medicore, out-of-date, or slanderous
material on Wikipedia has gone undetected for months. The
restricted access nature of the EoE author's wiki in combination
with the content review process significantly reduces the
opportunity and means for bad entries to start in the first place,
as well as the length of time they could go undetected.
7. There is no overall, coherent organization of articles in
Wikipedia. EoE articles are organized according to a logical
taxonomy developed by experts.

[MajorHart]

What is wrong with uncensored articles???

MY OPINION ON CENSORSHIP BY WIKIPEDIA OR ANYONE ELSE.

I don't want any "experts" telling me what opinions or articles are okay for me to read (or write).

Why can't *I* be the expert on my own material.

This is nothing more than the way the mainstream media spins and slants the news and refused to run anything that they can't use to manipulate the public. LET ME READ ANYTHING I'M INTERESTED IN AND DECIDE WHAT TO MAKE OF IT.

Anything else is Unamerican and stupid.

Who are these experts - does them sitting in a University or thinktank somewhere qualify them to tell me what information to post or access - I think not!

I can imagine anything anti-illegal alien, 911truth, anti globalism to not make it there. We need a complete uncensored place for US experts to post whatever we want to and people can make up their minds about it. If they are offended. TOUGH.

John Hansen [e-mail]

John Hansen [e-mail]