[MD] The (new and improved) MOQ Wiki

[david buchanan]

dmb said to David Harding:
I clicked on "questions", for example, and found a series of ridiculous 
questions that look a lot more like mockery than anything else. Looks like 
maybe even the hoaxters of Liverpool wrote them. And if the purpose of Wiki 
is to provide descriptions and definitions to those who are not yet 
familiar, then the site will mislead people just as they're being introduced 
to the MOQ. Bums me out, man.

DH replied:
Firstly.  I can tell you I'm the only person to have edited the MOQ Wiki in 
possibly more than six months.  I can also say that while I did not ask the 
questions on the Questions section I saw nothing indicating to me they were 
folly (a good perspective to take) and so responded to them according to my 
own understanding.   I claim no moral authority on the MOQ and understood 
while I wrote my answers that if someone didn't agree with what I had 
written they could simply change it themselves or complain about a response 
on the Discussions page for that page (every page has one).  The last and 
worst option would be that someone not participate at all.

dmb says:
You claim no moral authority and you saw nothing wrong with the questions? 
Yikes. Now I'm even more worried. I don't mean to be cruel, but if you put 
that site up then aren't you responsible for the content to some extent? 
Shouldn't you be able to filter out pranksters. I mean, how could you fail 
to notice how awful those questions are? Why should any legitimate question 
about a philosophical system contain any reference to Janet Jackson's left 
breast? And who wrote that nonsense, anyway?

I'm not saying you should be a control freak about it, but come on!

Its not too hard to see that part of your response is to basically say, hey, 
if you don't like it, then go ahead and change it. But I wonder if I can and 
I wonder how much time that would take. And I wonder if I'd then feel 
obliged to keep an eye on it to see if any pranksters have returned.  And, 
man, if I had the time for all that maybe I would have put up the site 
myself. But I don't, so I didn't.

Okay, maybe here is where I cross the line. But I gotta say it. If you can't 
manage the site, then shut it down or hand it off to somebody who can. I 
mean, imagine how you'd feel if you were the author of the MOQ. Imagine how 
you'd feel if your life's work was pointlessly associated with Janet 
Jackson's (lovely) tits? And how do you suppose visiting philosophers would 
take it?

DH said:
Anyway, if you like I'll remove the Questions page altogether if that's what 
you want?  Or the offending questions?  Or have you got some questions you'd 
like on there?  Actually, please tell me questions you'd like on there!

dmb says:
Here's a question for you about Wiki rather than the MOQ; who is supposed to 
answer the questions?  I guess the idea is to have a wide open thing so 
anybody can answer them (or ask them). This is the part that worries me. 
There seems to be absolutely nothing in place to protect against dishonesty 
or incompetence. Freedom is one thing, chaos is another, you know?

DH said:
Not having attended the first ever MOQ Conference it appears a shame to me 
that the events of more than a year ago now, are going to hinder what I see 
as something with as yet completely untapped potential.

dmb says:
If you mean to say that it would be a shame to let hoaxters messed up the 
site, then I'd certainly agree. I think they already have. But it would 
hardly matter if the author of those questions was completely sincere, 
because they're ridiculous regardless of the creator's motive.

For whatever its worth.
dmb

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/