--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
rather than a more broad discussion which might encompass Eastern views and so on.
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