ATD SPOILER p. 95

[Andrew Pollock]

I like that idea a lot.  It allows room for interpretation without
cluttering up the annotations and connections with potentially long
arguments that may not be helpful to many people.  It preserves the
information in both senses.

On 11/29/06, Anville Azote <anville.azote at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>