Peter Kirby

Well, I'm open to suggestions, but here is what I am thinking.

At this point, poster JM1 complains to the admins. An admin of that section then contacts nonJM1 to ask why the changes were made to the article. NonJM1 then replies with something like "JM1 said that Paul didn't believe in an earthly Jesus without qualifying the statement as a personal opinion or professional opinion, and it is not an indisputed fact." If this is true, the admin then contacts JM1 (actually this is taking place on the discussion page) whether this is indeed the case. JM1 could then respond, "I supported my statement with x, y and z." The administrator could then remind JM1 that supported statements, unless they are not disputed (and this one has been disputed), still need to be qualified as personal opinion or professional opinion. At this point JM1 might resign himself to attributing the opinion to Earl Doherty. Now the admin would approach NonJM1 and ask him to present the alternative opinion on whether Paul believed in an earthly Jesus, telling him that the appropriate thing is not to overwrite previous text in such a way that the original opinion isn't preserved. NonJM1 could then cite, say, Maurice Goguel and some Pauline scholar, and attribute the other opinion to these writers. In this way, both opinions on a disputed subject get to have their say.

Ultimately, though, if the above process breaks down, power to edit resides in the sysops, with me acting as princeps.

best,
Peter Kirby

Celsus

CX, Jacob, & Vork,

I wonder if you'd be willing to lend us your Glossary as a skeleton for the project?

Joel

Celsus

Actually, I think anyone with the will-power could potentially contribute, especially at the start. I thought I knew a thing or two about henotheism until I actually tried to write the entry--much of what is needed in that piece is stuff I had to look up, especially the first paragraph, being as general as it is (while trying not to duplicate Wikipedia's efforts)...

Joel

Vorkosigan

Hell yes. We could flesh those babies out, one by one....over the next century or so.

Celsus

Great! Next we just have to discover that anti-ageing gene and plant it in Peter (or find the ageing gene and wipe it from every cell in his body).

Joel

P.S., we need Vinnie's permission for his Ss too. Vinnie?

CX

Fine with me. As usual my effort petered out with my short attention span. I'd love to see that beefed up. I also think the TheoWiki concept is a great idea. Were I not such a flake I would probably contribute.

Peter Kirby

Hey, even abortive efforts can be carried through by others. And... don't sell yourself short! I think you'd be a great contributor, CX.

best,
Peter Kirby

Barefoot Bree

Could you use a part-time style-and-grammar editor to look over articles for typos and grammatical errors?

I don't think I'd have anything to contribute in the way of actually writing articles, but I'd be happy to run other authors' contributions through my readability-rinse cycle.

Peter Kirby

Yes, that would be good. The Recent Changes should be something you watch (you can get an atom/rss feed if you like). That lists the pages that have been recently modified or created.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

If you take a look at TheoWiki now, you will see that a definite structure is taking shape. Already over 100 entries have been created (some of them short, some of them copied [public domain], but some of them very good). Since it is more clear now what will be on TheoWiki (tentatively), I would like to solicit more feedback.

best,
Peter Kirby