[textop] Common assumptions; governance.
- From: "Matthew Elvey" <elvey+lists.textop@xxxxxxxx>
- To: textop@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 21:20:43 -0700
Thanks for the invitation. Following up on some recent discussion: >>> Administrators can not be [editors] and vice versa. I like this idea; the separation of powers is potentially a good source of checks and balances; some examples: the US gov't: legislative(bicameral), executive and judicial; federal, state and local. Domestic and foreign intelligence, Italy: polizia, carabineri, and military (with several branches). The benefit of this split is is that decision making and decision enforcement are separate. Consider an enforcer who also makes editorial decisions; his decisions and actions would often result in a far-from transparent situation, and be difficult to monitor for abuse. A couple wild ideas I'd like to throw out: 1)Perhaps this would increase collegiality/make it easier to be an editor: have the software force editors/moderators to reject some posts that they would have otherwise accepted. So, say 1 of 20 good contributions has to be rejected. Thus a rejecter may be more comfortable/accustomed to rejecting, and an otherwise touchy rejectee will have to expect some rejection. 2)Since we aren't allowing anonymity or pseudonymity, we will also need to verify to some extent that alleged Real Names are indeed real. For example, Thawte web-of-trust (http://www.thawte.com/secure-email/web-of-trust-wot/index.html) could be used for this; claimed university affiliation is generally web-verifiable. I'm not confident that "scientific background will be respected by the people." Perhaps the project should have a set of basic axioms that contributors are required to agree with, e.g. the scientific method, the illogic of a list of arguments, such as ad hominem (partly mentioned in the manifesto).... Is this a good idea, or is it needlessly divisive? We don't want to go too far - there's a continuum between objective reality and opinion. Consider a few points along this line: I exist. You exist. Earth exists. The Holocaust occurred. Alien abductions aren't frequent. humans evolved. Astrology, Homeopathy are invalid. Abortion is ____... At what point (if any) do we say: here's the point beyond which there are multiple valid opinions, but before that, we agree to agree that the dominant opinion is correct. Also, if we work hard and create "a meritocracy with enforceable rules" that proves to work very well, we could see the sincerest form of flattery. Thoughts? ===== textop - a Textop (http://www.textop.org) mailing list. To post, send a mail to textop@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, or just reply to this post. To unsubscribe, send a mail to textop-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the header.
Other related posts:
- » [textop] Common assumptions; governance.