From: "Andrea Zanni" <zanni.andrea84(a)gmail.com>
I do think it is easier
to understand and comprehend the procedures, ideas and mechanisms of
Wikipedia (for many reasons).
From what I've experienced, it is generally more difficult to explain
these
things to humanities scholars
that stm scholars.
I'm very surprised at this. When I started editing Wikipedia in 2003 I
immediately read the NPOV rules and was struck by their similarity to the
way I was taught to approach writing a paper. Not surprising actually, as I
think Larry drafted the original rules, and he has the same background as I.
The same would be true for someone with a background in textual criticism or
history.
I think the real problem is that a subject like philosophy *appears* easier
to learn and to write about than mathematics. I remember from teaching
students they would write acres of self-indulgent rubbish and you had to
gently explain that there were clear rules and principles, just like the
hard sciences. I'll quote this again from a well-known philosopher who left
Wikipedia some years ago
"Philosophy: I'm a philosopher; why don't I edit the article on my subject?
Because it's hopeless. I've tried at various times, and each time have given
up in depressed disgust. Philosophy seems to attract aggressive zealots who
know a little (often a very little), who lack understanding of key concepts,
terms, etc., and who attempt to take over the article (and its Talk page)
with rambling, ground-shifting, often barely comprehensible rants against
those who disagree with them. Life's too short. I just tell my students and
anyone else I know not to read the Wikipedia article except for a laugh.
It's one of those areas where the ochlocratic nature of Wikipedia really
comes a cropper".