14-09-2016, 10:49 AM
It's always a good idea to try something and then see what can be improved. I have a couple of remarks about the way the project works so far and what might be improved.
Positive:
I really like the debate and the fact that everything is reconsidered and concrete evidence is compared. I still fully support this project and I think it could help us and the study of the manuscript a lot.
Problems:
- People vote before the debate starts. Sometimes details emerge that could change one's vote, but not everybody will keep reading the thread after voting.
- Not everybody is qualified to judge everything. For example, I did not know exactly what defines a palimpsest. Some others were clearly not familiar with the definition of "religious iconography" and so on.
- People can vote "no" and shoot down an idea without any explanation whatsoever.
Since we are trying to build solid foundations, I think it's worth a try to circumvent these problems.
My proposal for a solution:
1) Don't start with a statement, but a question: is the MS a palimpsest? Is there any conventional religious iconography?
2) Debate follows, evidence is gathered.
3) If a consensus is reached or it looks like everything has been said, an editor closes the thread and distills a statement from it. In this statement there can be room for nuance if necessary. The statement is presented in a new thread and people can still suggest to have it changed.
I believe this will lead to a better, more comprehensive result. These are of course just suggestions, so feel free to suggest an alternative as well
Positive:
I really like the debate and the fact that everything is reconsidered and concrete evidence is compared. I still fully support this project and I think it could help us and the study of the manuscript a lot.
Problems:
- People vote before the debate starts. Sometimes details emerge that could change one's vote, but not everybody will keep reading the thread after voting.
- Not everybody is qualified to judge everything. For example, I did not know exactly what defines a palimpsest. Some others were clearly not familiar with the definition of "religious iconography" and so on.
- People can vote "no" and shoot down an idea without any explanation whatsoever.
Since we are trying to build solid foundations, I think it's worth a try to circumvent these problems.
My proposal for a solution:
1) Don't start with a statement, but a question: is the MS a palimpsest? Is there any conventional religious iconography?
2) Debate follows, evidence is gathered.
3) If a consensus is reached or it looks like everything has been said, an editor closes the thread and distills a statement from it. In this statement there can be room for nuance if necessary. The statement is presented in a new thread and people can still suggest to have it changed.
I believe this will lead to a better, more comprehensive result. These are of course just suggestions, so feel free to suggest an alternative as well
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)
