neutrality does not exist. it is impossible to work intelligently on a
subject without developing a view about the disputed questions. To
search for documents on must know what the issues are; to find
relevant documents it is necessary to examine the documents found, so
one inevitably forms an opinion on the subject.
One has to be aware of ones biases and know the devices for overcoming
them. (the simplest one is to ask oneself--what material will the
opponent use?) Even if you say, retrieve everything on both sides,
there is usually no sharp boundary for everything, and one is likely
to look harder for what one wants to find.
The only sort of search where this doesn't apply are the purely
mechanical ones that can be properly carried out by the current level
of artificial intelligence.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 12:56 PM, stevertigo <stvrtg(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
Good faith is not a factor here since we assume
it is present in > both paths. In bottlenecks we get people digging in their heels
> and defending certain perceptions of an idea. Dispersion
happens when someone abandons the bottlenecked sandbox
Good faith is always relevant when you are asking people to trust
other people with their valuables, and to make themselves available to
other people in ways which those others can potentially abuse.
But I understand your point about POV creep. That is why sourcewallas
must remain neutral: The requester submits a concept to the
sourcewalla and the sourcewalla finds a selection of various different
relevant citations. The sourcewalla is simply an intelligent and open
human interface to a copyright search engine.
-Stevertigo
"And if she asks you why...
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l