2013.03.04.Statement
About content of TORI
TORI exists since 2011. SInce that time, hundreds of participants contributed, see http://tori.ils.uec.ac.jp/TORI1064/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=500 Some of them are from ILS.
I had got many requests about authorization at TORI. All of them were satisfied.
The users created hundreds pages, although not all the contributions happen to be appropriate. For the examples of non–appropriate contribution, see http://tori.ils.uec.ac.jp/TORI1064/index.php/Category:Articles_by_robots
The users did not criticize the general content of TORI. The general critics of TORI can be placed as comment of this page at Talk:2013.03.04.Statement or at the "talk" of the Main page. Some off-topics are removed from there (and can be seen with bottom "history"), but they did not contain critics of TORI. If you see that some critics does not go through, please, let me know as soon as possible. TORI is critical site, and critics of TORI itself is especially important.
I got few suggestions about the content by Email; all these suggestions are taken into account and replied.
If you dislike some concept presented in some article, please, criticize it at its "discussion" page, at its "talk". Suggest your concept on the topic, as an alternative to the concept you criticize.
Any attempt to eliminate an article without to criticize it is qualified as vandalism and aggression, even if You try to motivate Your action with some "good goals". The "good goals" do not justify dirty actions that do not correspond the TORI axioms. One example of the dirty action is loaded in the article Scientific misconduct.
This applies both to the content of the statements and to the terminology and notations used.
If You dislike some notation, then You are supposed to suggest some Your notation, that You believe to be more convenient.
If You claim, that there exist some references, that confirm Your statement, You are supposed to provide them. References in following style
"everybody knows", "This can be found with google", "this is described in wikipedia"
are qualified as religious, until you suggest a way to reject your statement (See article Refutability).
Hope for Your understanding. Kouznetsov 16:38, 4 March 2013 (JST)