I use
Everything as a sort of
primitive quest for
information. I will sit and run through hundreds of
random nodes each day, and in them will find
factoids, social
commentary,
ranting,
angst,
historical information -- and what is more, I will find them all
mixed together.
Through the use of
Everything, I can look up a term that I am unfamiliar with, and find not only its meaning within the
context I am interested in, but also
how people feel about it. This
fascinates me to an incredible extent. I can
discover that an obscure
phrase is used as a piece of
slang in the midwest, as well as being used by New York nurses to describe
chest wounds and also that it is the motto for a small
pizza place in
Britain. And not only that, but I can read write-ups both
positive and
negative about that
pizza place. At least, that's where we're headed. With a few quick
jumps, I can even discover what sentiments and notions are held about the Midwest, or find
criticism of the renumeration for those
nurses. On Everything, factual information can stand right there beside
sexual fantasies. This is
amazing.
Everything is an encylopedia of words, phrases and thoughts which incorporates
point of view. This, to me, is its
value.
It seems this is not a
universally held opinion, though. Nodes are downvoted or even
nuked for portraying opinions that are not
politically correct. If someone
elucidates quite clearly on a
subject, and that subject is
controversial, we have a problem. The
knee-jerk reaction is to
do away with it, remove that
blemish from our
sparkling white treasure trove.
But then, how will we
learn anything? Learning is a
process which involves the deciphering of
contrary theories and opinions. If content on
Everything becomes
homogenously PC, we are
missing half of the
equation.
Disagreement should not be grounds for
invalidation. Nodes should be judged on their
factuality if they are factual nodes. They should be judged on
clarity if they are opinion nodes. If you are incapable of
judging thusly, you should hold onto your
votes and use them when you are
capable. The purpose of an
opinion node is to display, clearly, an opinion. If it does this, it has served its
purpose. I'm not asking that these nodes be
upvoted simply for controversy, or that they be
cooled for it. Rather, a
tactful pass-over would be in order.
With
Everything, we've gone beyond the point of
protective censorship. This is not a place to
educate your children, it is a place to
discover the wide variety of
human beings that exist out there, in the course of gathering
knowledge. It is a place to be alternately
amused and
repulsed. If you remove the
ugly bits, you're left with a very
pretty and completely
false view of the way the
world works.
If you
disagree with an opinion, write a
response node. Then, with no down-
voting due to ideological differences, let the masses
decide which of the write-ups is the most
lucid and
accurate through
abstaining from voting for the one with which they disagree, or voting for the one which they believe best expresses a
viewpoint. It wouldn't even be as much of a
problem if people simply voted up those they agreed with and let the rest
alone. At least then we wouldn't need to worry about
groundless nuking and discouraged
contrarians.
In address to the common concern of whether or not there is even censorship: Downvoting for any reason other than falsehoods or lack of clarity is, in essence, a call for censorship. The editors are flagged and notified that people want this node removed. Yes, the ultimate decision rests with them, and yes I'm sure that they are all fine and upstanding people. The fact remains that even those people who are fine and upstanding can allow bias to creep into them, or be too tired to react with anything more than instinct.