Ok then, now that jimmy agrees with this points (and supposedly everyone), I will present what refinements I'm adding to the policies and guidelines:
I am writing here from memory, so correct me if i'm wrong..
- 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.
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).
- 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.
Not really explained well in the rules, (AFAIK), I will add this.
- 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)
I have yet to see this in the guidelines (maybe in a subtle way).
- 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)
Already written in the guidelines.
- 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.
Hmm.. I don't know about this.. seems like a regular POV issue.
- 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)
This is Quantity vs. Quality, I believe it's written.
- 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 written in the "What wikipedia is NOT" article, though it mentions "Original Research", I will broad that definition.
If you have suggestions/objections please comment.
Rotem
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com