I define knowledge as useful information. Knowing what some guy had for lunch last year, while technically knowledge, does very little in the way of usefulness. I define useful knowledge as information that allows critical thinking and analysis, as well as information that allows the solving of real world problems (supply chain management, solving crime, managing market economies, etc)

NPOV as nothing to do with consensus.

And philosophy has is place in an encyclopedia.

But the article can expose non-consensual opinions in a balanced way.... The consensus should researched about NPOV not about the subject of the article.

I'm really behind in my email, sorry. That Ideapedia sounds really interesting, I'll tell you more about my opinion when I get around to reading your original ideapedia post. I still think an allpedia, allows anything short of shortening articles, would be better, and it would incompass your ideapedia.

Eric Demolli wrote: No. An article is about a particular subject, and about reaching NPOV on that subject. NPOV is a subject all by itself which shouldn't need to be the wheel that's reinvented in articles on every subject. Eclecticology _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

From: Rotem Dan <rotem_dan(a)yahoo.com> Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 14:08:31 -0700 (PDT) To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text on the "Knowledge" article OK, ok you guys don't seem to get the point of my post. What I meant was that ANY philosophical text, is inappropriate for an ENCYCLOPEDIA, because it's obviously cannot become consensus, and will always remain merely a POV. It's like saying that by creating a wiki trying to "define" *what* is "art" , you will eventually (and ultimately) get to the point of consensus. that everyone will agree: "Yes, exactly, that is art". Great, all our problems solved, the wiki said Art is defined by X, Thought is Y and Knowledge is Z. Some things just shouldn't be written into a wiki. Rotem. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

From: Rotem Dan <rotem_dan(a)yahoo.com> Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 03:35:25 -0700 (PDT) To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text on the "Knowledge" article --- Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote: I argue this shouldn't be done as a principle, the articles are complicated enough. This is also a matter of quality vs quantity, I don't think the latter 80% of the "knowledge" article, adds a significant insight for the reader's understanding in proportion to the amount of text given. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

OK, ok you guys don't seem to get the point of my post. What I meant was that ANY philosophical text, is inappropriate for an ENCYCLOPEDIA, because it's obviously cannot become consensus, and will always remain merely a POV. It's like saying that by creating a wiki trying to "define" *what* is "art" , you will eventually (and ultimately) get to the point of consensus. that everyone will agree: "Yes, exactly, that is art". Great, all our problems solved, the wiki said Art is defined by X, Thought is Y and Knowledge is Z. Some things just shouldn't be written into a wiki. Rotem.

From: Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com> Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 05:56:26 -0700 To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text on the "Knowledge" article Rotem Dan wrote: It's on Larry's user page, right? We've always taken a *fairly* lax view of what can be on user pages, and this seems to fall well within our normal boundaries. User pages are not _in_ the encyclopedia. --Jimbo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

URL?

--- Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com> wrote: This is only one of the different points I brought up, I will try to sum them all: 1. Giving the western philosophical views of "Knowledge" should be paired by eastern ones (In the same amount of detail) -- I don't expect this to be done soon, as I've said on previous posts, the majority of writers origin from western cultures, but this should change. 2. Creating a wiki that tries to form a consensus regarding the matter itself (by addressing the matter directly, not the different views and historical timeline) is an impossible task. 3. Encyclopedic articles should not try define the matter (e.g. "What is knowledge?") unless it is trivial (Like in Wikipedia's Knowledge article, as opposed to Brittanica) 4. Encyclopedic article should cite and base the ideas and concepts presented, preferably by reference to known experts in the field (In this case World-recognized philosophers) 5. One person's thought process may lead into completely different "philosophical" discussion. So stating that the "following discussion" presented is the only "correct" one is a biased treatment of the subject. 6. In this specific case (as an example), I argued that the latter 80% of the article doesn't add a significant insight on the matter, in proportion to the amount of text given. (Quantity vs. Quality) 7. I propose another definition of what Wikipedia is NOT: Wikipedia is NOT a collaborative project of writing scientific papers or text-books, or any debatable cognitive material for that matter. I hope this explains it Rotem __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Ok, then what is the prefered course of action on these matters?

I am beginning to think these are just defects inherited from mistreatment in the early days of wikipedia.

I've had problems implementing my suggestions on the cultural issues (see earlier posts) in wikipedia's policies, maybe because I think this will look like concealed politically correctness, I don't know.

Yes, I frequently have (so called) problems of negative attitude (and over-suspicion).. But this seems to be the way I can keep a critical eye on the goings, instead of falling into the mundane "groupthinking".

1. Giving the western philosophical views of "Knowledge" should be paired by eastern ones (In the same amount of detail) -- I don't expect this to be done soon, as I've said on previous posts, the majority of writers origin from western cultures, but this should change.

2. Creating a wiki that tries to form a consensus regarding the matter itself (by addressing the matter directly, not the different views and historical timeline) is an impossible task.

3. Encyclopedic articles should not try define the matter (e.g. "What is knowledge?") unless it is trivial (Like in Wikipedia's Knowledge article, as opposed to Brittanica)

4. Encyclopedic article should cite and base the ideas and concepts presented, preferably by reference to known experts in the field (In this case World-recognized philosophers)

5. One person's thought process may lead into completely different "philosophical" discussion. So stating that the "following discussion" presented is the only "correct" one is a biased treatment of the subject.

6. In this specific case (as an example), I argued that the latter 80% of the article doesn't add a significant insight on the matter, in proportion to the amount of text given. (Quantity vs. Quality)

7. I propose another definition of what Wikipedia is NOT: Wikipedia is NOT a collaborative project of writing scientific papers or text-books, or any debatable cognitive material for that matter.

Not adding, this seems like political correctness, this is the type of rules I don't like, you cannot force americans to write enthusiastically about African cultures (or eastern philosophy for this example).

I can't find any way to contact an anonymous user. I think anonymous users should have talk pages assigned to their IP adress so that people can respond to their changes.

Also, on the recent changes page, for some reason, it doesn't let me just click on the ip adress of the editing user.

Instead, I have to go into the article, then into the page history, then click on the IP adress.

If a talk page like that were made, would it show up for the person saying you have new messages on the top of every screen?

this is the type of rules I don't like, you cannot force americans to write enthusiastically about African cultures (or eastern philosophy for this example).

Huh? I'm afraid I'm totally at a loss as to why this is even remotely western centric, nor why it would make you angry. Please explain. Zoe

From: Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren(a)yahoo.com> Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 21:59:21 -0700 (PDT) To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text on the "Knowledge" article Well, I want to just delete the whole thing and replace it with a short paragraph or two about epistemology. But then people would complain, and I don't like to do things if they are going to be disliked by everyone. If it's OK for me to completely rewrite the article, then I will. I would also like to do the same with [[Information warfare]], but the shortening of articles seems to be discouraged. --- Zoe <zoecomnena(a)yahoo.com> wrote: __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

I am not a philosopher. I'm arguing that these texts are inappropriate for an encyclopedia that tries to be universal. Another example would be putting AxelBoldt's comparison of "US vs Germany", with a comment like "I know this is biased, and sucks overall and reflects the opinions of one person, so be bold and add your own opinion and rewrite this!" (I don't mean to say Axel's comparison sucks, it is actually quite interesting, I've read the whole thing..)

From: Rotem Dan <rotem_dan(a)yahoo.com> Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 03:48:25 -0700 (PDT) To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text I agree it's better than nothing, and contributions should be welcomed (Especially by experts and scholars), but is an *encyclopedia* the right place to put this text in? I think that if you grant Larry to put his texts on the site, than you should grant *everyone* to put their own text. Then I should be allowed to add my own text about "knowledge" meaning nothing to me and the importance of smelly socks in the stream of consciousness of an old couch.. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

From: tarquin <tarquin(a)planetunreal.com> Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 13:05:14 +0100 To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text Rotem Dan wrote: I don't think that is what this is about. Larry's text was posted here in the first few *weeks* of Wikipedia. It was, AFAIK, posted to give the philosophy section a quick start. It just so happens that no decent philosopher has come along to rewrite it to read more like an encyclopedia article and less like Larry's personal notes. Larry disagreed with Fred Bauder's edits of [[Reality]], largely because they were lousy. Even I could tell that with only philosophy 101 in my back pocket; if I had felt a little more compentent I would have helped at the time. So, reiterating what I've said twice: it's not "larry's OWN text". It's been called "Larry's text" as an abbreviation. Please don't let's turn this into a huge issue where there is none. oh, wait, it already has been. well, we already do.... note the "Edit text of this page" link ;-) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l