Two intercorrelated general remarks concerning the Scope-Policy:

Two connected general remarks concerning the Scope-Policy:

Prof. Stephan Quensel 15/02/2002

1. Originality:

One of the main advances of the Internet as an instrument of information is in comparison to the standard information-sources - its >actuality< combined with its broad range of possible perspectives and opinions on the one side and its access to otherwise relatively rare available resources on the other side.

That means

a: as a search-procedure: Dont look too much for the known standard-websites which repeat the xtime the same standard-knowledge, but search for such sides which bring new and as yet not so easy accessible information. Of course we have to collect and represent these standard-websites, but we mustnt be absolutely complete at this stage of collection. Most of those websites are for the >expert< (for whom the gate is firsthand directed?) nothing new. Some more unknown and novel websites would be far more interesting, especially if they are linked with other information-sources

b. as an evaluation criterion: there is nearly a rule: The more the website obeys our evaluation-criteria (s. Marianne) the less is their newness. One reason for this is, that standard knowledge had more time to be ordered; mostly it has more finances behind it, bigger institutions, legality.

All in all we shouldnt be to anxious, to take websides into the gate, which dont fulfil all our criteria.

Take for example a website with informations concerning drugs in one of the Eastern European states (without our sophisticated website-management) or informations about own experiences with mushrooums &

2. Neutrality

The field of legal and illegal - drugs is more than most other subject matters beset with ideology, so that it is very difficult to find a position of objectivity or objective truth.

The official drug policy is today predominantly dominated by a hegemonial and government-oriented perspective, in which e.g.

the field is divided in legal and illegal drugs forgetting the prescribed drugs and most often even nicotine

repression dominates, therapy is the royal highway; harm-reduction and acceptance are strange at best

prevention with an abstinence goal is considered the only possibility whereas learning to do with drugs on a basis of informed consent is not seen as advisable.

As information-gate we follow an ethic of giving neutral, good evaluated information for all sides, but four dangers lure us into a position of an >assistant gardener of government< as Bauman put it:

our language as a hidden means of transportation of the hegemonial thinking (>party-drugsaddiction<): a hardly soluble problem for our catchwords

our formal evaluation criteria: organisation, stability, address: but only conforming institutions are financed (s. grupo Abele), and illegality or power of suying hinder the >respectable outfit<

considerations of our `directors and our own wishes of (future projects oriented) respectability

and last but not least, our own >prisons of thoughts<, matured in this frame of hegemonial thinking: e.g. nobody thought about the subject matter of >Culture and drugs< - art, subculture, rules and rituals, history, ethnography-&.

Thoughts like the above mentioned were originally the basis of the foundation of BISDRO/ARCHIDO, giving also the other side a voice. Also, that means: everybody has the right of free information for all possible informations including the officially forbidden information as long as giving the information is not punishable in itself.

Knowing very well the danger of >false with again a threefold problem:

there is on the user-side a lot of real nonsense, unproved, rationalized, mystique information

but also on the other side governmental, and officially financed research some 80% (or so) of the drug related content is pure nonsense (an example could be my review of the >best and state financed< Ecstasy-Research from Thomasius in www.archido.de/Rezensionen - if you compare these results e.g. with the informations you will get from Eve & Rave.

most of us cannot evaluate the rightness of the content thats true, but looking only to our formal criteria could be just as misleading sometimes is a more subjective statement in the free-text the best solution.

There is no absolute solution, but maybe a direction to solve the problem, if we accept the gateway-user as a >mature< user, not in need to be fed by our spoons. and

if we give him /her as much as possible differing information-possibilities and

if we present him/her informations with the following 4 characteristics

high complexity including chats and discussion-forum&.

rich informations with pro and cons and with testable proofs and

originality, newness (s. point 1)

and our subjective assessment of the information (both: it is our and an evaluation about the three other characteristics

In sum; in this first 18 months everybody is free to select the websites maybe monitored a little by the group to get an as broad as possible information-gate without any claim of completeness. Giving the followers in the next stages the model and the opportunity to develop a real good information-gate

For the evaluation by users we should sample automatically every incoming keyword, to learn what is searched for by our users.