My understanding was that npov wasnt a consensus, rather it was a collection of opinions, each presented as OPINIONS, not facts, and that often, consensuses were never reached, as they are usually never reached in political or philosophical debate. There are many different ideas of what art is, and as many as possible should be presented. The knowledge article is still POV as of the time of this writing, and it will remain so unill people present their arguments of what knowledge is. Personally, I don't believe with a word on the knowledge article, and I plan on changing it to include my philosophies. It should include every philosophy. Don't be afraid to write yours down. It's not POV unless you present it as a fact, like Larry did.
--- Rotem Dan rotem_dan@yahoo.com wrote:
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