ATD SPOILER p. 95

[Anville Azote]

On 11/29/06, Andrew Pollock <ahpollock at gmail.com> wrote:
> I actually have great concern about how the interpretations on
> pynchonwiki are going to be handled.  Not only do they present a huge
> source of potential conflict, editorial content is also dearly loved
> by those who write it, making it very difficult to debate.
>
> I'm well aware of the power of wikis, and I've spent several hours
> contributing to the one under discussion, but it isn't throwing rocks
> to suggest that if the p-wiki is going to work some care and
> consideration need to be given to how to handle the interpolation of
> interpretation.  At the very least, it would seem that opinions should
> be attributed within the article, not simply on the history page,
> especially as the sections on p-wiki get quite large.  But it would be
> nice to have a sense of how things will be decided there, and what
> kind of content is appropriate.
>
> Andrew
>

Random thought:  why not institute a rule along the lines of
Wikipedia's "No original research" policy for the article pages, allow
free rein on the **discussion** pages, and host periodic debates about
issues in Pynchon criticism, the results of which are posted with
proper attribution in the appropriate articles?

(I will probably start contributing much more heavily to the p-wiki
after I finish the last 102 pages of ATD.)

-A. A.