pothos.org

Greetings Tim,And thank you for your response to my questions.
Another question: does the person posting the information have the right to remove the information and request it *not* be used in Wiki once he or she has placed it there? >Assertions to the contrary, I don't see that much >discussion of the Pothos articles here. To get over >those recent nasty posts, I started one on the >Nearchus page, and found it very enjoyable. I >actually think we GOT somewhere! I look forward to >other discussions of the same sort.Assertions to the contrary, I don't see that much >discussion of the Pothos articles here. To get over >those recent nasty posts, I started one on the >Nearchus page, and found it very enjoyable. I >actually think we GOT somewhere! I look forward to >other discussions of the same sort.Assertions to the contrary, I don't see that much >discussion of the Pothos articles here. To get over >those recent nasty posts, I started one on the >Nearchus page, and found it very enjoyable. I >actually think we GOT somewhere! I look forward to >other discussions of the same sort.discussion of the Pothos articles here. To get over >those recent nasty posts, I started one on the >Nearchus page, and found it very enjoyable. I >actually think we GOT somewhere! I look forward to >other discussions of the same sort.discussion of the Pothos articles here. To get over >those recent nasty posts, I started one on the >Nearchus page, and found it very enjoyable. I >actually think we GOT somewhere! I look forward to >other discussions of the same sort.those recent nasty posts, I started one on the >Nearchus page, and found it very enjoyable. I >actually think we GOT somewhere! I look forward to >other discussions of the same sort.those recent nasty posts, I started one on the >Nearchus page, and found it very enjoyable. I >actually think we GOT somewhere! I look forward to >other discussions of the same sort.Nearchus page, and found it very enjoyable. I >actually think we GOT somewhere! I look forward to >other discussions of the same sort.Nearchus page, and found it very enjoyable. I >actually think we GOT somewhere! I look forward to >other discussions of the same sort.actually think we GOT somewhere! I look forward to >other discussions of the same sort.actually think we GOT somewhere! I look forward to >other discussions of the same sort.other discussions of the same sort.other discussions of the same sort.I would have to disagree here. There have been, over the years, excellent debates on Pothos. I have often saved portions of debate, depending on subject matter, when certain members are discussing a point based in historical data and/or extrapolation *from* this data. I have collected an extensive file of same (smiling)I believe some of the sense that there is a lack of debate/discussion on appropriate or interesting topic comes in when people get sidetracked with "attack posts" or nationalistic arguments (both of which are forbidden in the introduction). And there is always a contingent who feel it necessary to insult other people or groups in order to "argue" a case, simply because they run out of factual argument, or who seek to use hurtful "humour" to tryt o "win a point'... But these generally fade and the Forum gets back to "real" issues... Alexander and his times. I shall have to visit the Nearchus debate... thank you for the "tip".Regards,
Sikander

On copyright: If the Wiki is "copyleft" it cannot; once something is released under such a license, you lose legal control. But I am not adverse to a more restrictive copyright scheme, if that would get some of the Pothos authors to put their work up.Generally, material submitted would get a site-specific copyright. But the Pothos authors--let me know first--would have a special notice at the bottom of the articles, reserving copyright on their material and the right to remove it. Once the material is removed, it's easy to specially remove it's revision history to prevent people from "reverting" the material.

that's indeed a very effective way of dealing with it.regards,abm

Perhaps I'm less optimistic ...Those guidelines sound fine (although I have visions of people desperately overreaching themselves and toppling over - I'm sure Tim didn't mean that to sound patronising, though ); however, I can only envisage someone having a *massive* job keeping an eye on all of this.Still, if it works, I think it all looks cool.ATBMarcus

Has anyone looked at the wikipedia entry on Alexander? I ran across it some months ago and spent several hours trying to correct some of the more egregious errors of fact and propaganda (and citing sources to try to forestall "corrections" that would restore the factual errors), but I just haven't had the time to do the comprehensive rewrite it really needs.If you trace the history of revisions to the wikipedia entry, I think you'll develop a pretty good idea of how wikis evolve over time - and what some of the potential pitfalls to an Alexander wiki might turn out to be.I'm just saying..Regards,Thom Stark

"I can only envisage someone having a *massive* job keeping an eye on all of this."that's true, but having more than one editor wolud partly (largely?) solve that problem.

"I can only envisage someone having a *massive* job keeping an eye on all of this."that's true, but having more than one editor wolud partly (largely?) solve that problem.