Just stumbled upon the "Knowledge" article, and was hit by shock and amazement:
"You come to a gas station and the gas station attendant tells you: "I just heard from someone that there was a big accident just around the big curve on State Route 99. .."
"So let's get down to business, and ask: What is knowledge? How can I define the word or the concept, 'knowledge'?"
"In other words, by the word "knowledge," we don't mean simply whatever is generally regarded as true these days by most experts"
In other words, a western-americo-centric-article-written-solely-in- the-point-of-view-an-almost-obscure-philosopher.. (If this sounds like trolling, then I apologize, I am pretty angry right now.. :| )
With all the respect for wikipedia's founders, please do not allow these tribute pages on wikipedia. You-state-yourself-that-wikipedia-is-an-encyclopedia-,not an-"Ideapedia"-or-tribute-shrine-for-your-beloved-favorite- philosopher. (Again apologizing for the trolling attitude)
Please consider leaving these type of texts as cites, or book references (drived by the usual wiki-consensus).
Rotem
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
--- Rotem Dan rotem_dan@yahoo.com wrote:
"So let's get down to business, and ask: What is knowledge? How can I define the word or the concept, 'knowledge'?"
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)
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com
I define knowledge much more broadly. Knowledge is anything that can be known If you know what jesus had on his last supper almost 2000 years ago, that's knowledge. If you know what some guy had for lunch last year, that's knowledge, that's knowledge too. If you know a math theorem that you just finished but you haven't told anyone, that's knowledge. If you know a word that you invented but no one else in the world knows, that's still knowledge.
--- Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com wrote:
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)
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
Larry is special, being with Jimbo the co-founder of wikipedia. But feel free to edit the article.
Fred
From: Rotem Dan rotem_dan@yahoo.com Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:54:39 -0700 (PDT) To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text on the "Knowledge" article
Just stumbled upon the "Knowledge" article, and was hit by shock and amazement:
"You come to a gas station and the gas station attendant tells you: "I just heard from someone that there was a big accident just around the big curve on State Route 99. .."
"So let's get down to business, and ask: What is knowledge? How can I define the word or the concept, 'knowledge'?"
"In other words, by the word "knowledge," we don't mean simply whatever is generally regarded as true these days by most experts"
In other words, a western-americo-centric-article-written-solely-in- the-point-of-view-an-almost-obscure-philosopher.. (If this sounds like trolling, then I apologize, I am pretty angry right now.. :| )
With all the respect for wikipedia's founders, please do not allow these tribute pages on wikipedia. You-state-yourself-that-wikipedia-is-an-encyclopedia-,not an-"Ideapedia"-or-tribute-shrine-for-your-beloved-favorite- philosopher. (Again apologizing for the trolling attitude)
Please consider leaving these type of texts as cites, or book references (drived by the usual wiki-consensus).
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@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
There is a whole branch of philosophy that deal with the nature of science this is generally named as epistemology....
Knowlege is not science as knowledge as no obvious relationship with truth. For instance you can know a lot about conspiracy theories or religion (I don't mean to hurt anybody.) even if they are false. But science research truth.
Most advanced views about science will conclude that :
"Science simply whatever is generally regarded as true these days by most experts"
With a minus, that is methodology. (I don't feel to explain more here it's to late and to much work for me to be understandable about this in English)
In the previous sentence you can replace science with truth that works. What can we conclude.... that truth doesn't exist it's just an aim.
A lot of people will jump to the conclusion that I have written that facts didn't exists. That's wrong, facts exists and the search of truth shoud rely on facts .
I don't know why I write this here, but they could be a lot a of good articles about think kind of subject.
As we are lacking some good lawyers in Wikipedia contributor we may also lack some good philosophers.
Ericd
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rotem Dan" rotem_dan@yahoo.com To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 9:54 PM Subject: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text on the "Knowledge" article
Just stumbled upon the "Knowledge" article, and was hit by shock and amazement:
"You come to a gas station and the gas station attendant tells you: "I just heard from someone that there was a big accident just around the big curve on State Route 99. .."
"So let's get down to business, and ask: What is knowledge? How can I define the word or the concept, 'knowledge'?"
"In other words, by the word "knowledge," we don't mean simply whatever is generally regarded as true these days by most experts"
In other words, a western-americo-centric-article-written-solely-in- the-point-of-view-an-almost-obscure-philosopher.. (If this sounds like trolling, then I apologize, I am pretty angry right now.. :| )
With all the respect for wikipedia's founders, please do not allow these tribute pages on wikipedia. You-state-yourself-that-wikipedia-is-an-encyclopedia-,not an-"Ideapedia"-or-tribute-shrine-for-your-beloved-favorite- philosopher. (Again apologizing for the trolling attitude)
Please consider leaving these type of texts as cites, or book references (drived by the usual wiki-consensus).
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@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, Rotem Dan wrote:
With all the respect for wikipedia's founders, please do not allow these tribute pages on wikipedia.
*ahem*
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger/Larry%27s_Text
"... This material will require radical reworking and general wikification to become appropriate for Wikipedia. I'm now in the process of wikifying this myself, but I certainly invite help with this. --Larry Sanger"
"I know a lot of this sucks. It is written to get the general concepts across to Ohio State undergrads. Yes, some of what I've written might be outright wrong, and most of it can be tightened up considerably. If you want to help me do that, don't bother replying to something I've written here. Just make the change you think is necessary, please."
"Finally, you might not like my style, and you might think that I don't present the issues reliably enough, and otherwise feel that this contribution is not exactly a boon to Wikipedia. If that's the case, you can feel free to replace what I've written with your own golden prose; I'd just appreciate that you convey roughly the same information that I do (i.e., you cover the same topics and say the same (true) things I have to say about them). If these textbook entries are placeholders before better stuff comes along, that's perfectly fine by me."
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
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
NPOV as nothing to do with consensus. And philosophy has is place in an encyclopedia.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rotem Dan" rotem_dan@yahoo.com To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 11:08 PM 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@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- Eric Demolli demolli@unice.fr wrote:
NPOV as nothing to do with consensus.
NPOV causes consensus. An article that looks neutral causes the feeling of confidence which leads to a consnsus between the persons writing and viewing the aritcle.
And philosophy has is place in an encyclopedia.
I agree, So I suggest writing like this .. In western philosophy [...] In eastern philosophy [...] ..
See the famous works of the world-known western philosophers: Nietzsche, Friedrich .. Sanger, Larry (available online) .. Kant, Immanuel .. .. And respected works of chinese philosophers .. ..
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
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.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rotem Dan" rotem_dan@yahoo.com To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 11:40 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text on the "Knowledge" article
--- Eric Demolli demolli@unice.fr wrote:
NPOV as nothing to do with consensus.
NPOV causes consensus. An article that looks neutral causes the feeling of confidence which leads to a consnsus between the persons writing and viewing the aritcle.
And philosophy has is place in an encyclopedia.
I agree, So I suggest writing like this .. In western philosophy [...] In eastern philosophy [...] ..
See the famous works of the world-known western philosophers: Nietzsche, Friedrich .. Sanger, Larry (available online) .. Kant, Immanuel .. .. And respected works of chinese philosophers .. ..
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- Eric Demolli demolli@unice.fr wrote:
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.
Exactly my point, but I argue further that writing the complete or partial larry text INSIDE the article is an obvious and very strong POV issue. Why give 400 lines (or in fact, any amount of space) for an obscure philosopher but leave all others overlooked? this is an obvious bias.
I will sum my personal opinion about larry's texts and similar writings: I think they should be completely removed from the encyclopedia and transferred, possibly to an "Ideapedia" that specializes in collaborative scientific and philosophical research.
Rotem
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
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.
--- Rotem Dan rotem_dan@yahoo.com wrote:
I will sum my personal opinion about larry's texts and similar writings: I think they should be completely removed from the encyclopedia and transferred, possibly to an "Ideapedia" that specializes in collaborative scientific and philosophical research.
Rotem
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
--- Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:
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.
I wasn't the one that posted about ideapedia, it was someone else on this newsgroup. I actually like both the "Ideapedia" concept, and "Allpedia" concept..
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
Eric Demolli wrote:
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.
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
I may have been unclear I we write an article about "The existence of God", we would never get a consensus about the existence of God, thus we will have to find some consensus about reaching NPOV for article taht will deal with non-consensual opinions. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 6:45 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text on the "Knowledge" article
Eric Demolli wrote:
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.
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@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I still think that consensus can never be reached on any of these issues. Simply QUOTE opinions, and make it clear that they aren't facts.
--- Eric Demolli demolli@unice.fr wrote:
I may have been unclear I we write an article about "The existence of God", we would never get a consensus about the existence of God, thus we will have to find some consensus about reaching NPOV for article taht will deal with non-consensual opinions.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
Well, if you consult Britannica what they do in philosophical articles is set forth the history of philosophical thought on a subject. Here we try, usually unsuccessully, to address the issue itself. However, in the absence of a recognized canon of knowledge on a topic our attempts are unlikely to satisfy.
Knowledge is doable though.
As to art, right at the beginning of work on the Oxford Dictionary, they hit that rock. And more or less did it.
Fred
From: Rotem Dan rotem_dan@yahoo.com Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 14:08:31 -0700 (PDT) To: wikien-l@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@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Well, if you consult Britannica what they do in philosophical articles is set forth the history of philosophical thought on a subject. Here we try, usually unsuccessully, to address the issue itself.
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
Well, when I edited the article, (adding most of the first 20%) I did not disturb Larry's text because I knew who he was and didn't want trouble. (I found it later with him at "reality". Actually I also think his text, indeed most of his philosophical writings could probably be deleted without reducing the amount of information in the encyclopedia. However reverts have occured when his material is deleted.
Be careful, he has his supporters.
Fred
From: Rotem Dan rotem_dan@yahoo.com Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 03:35:25 -0700 (PDT) To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text on the "Knowledge" article
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Well, if you consult Britannica what they do in philosophical articles is set forth the history of philosophical thought on a subject. Here we try, usually unsuccessully, to address the issue itself.
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@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Actually I also think his text, indeed most of his philosophical writings could probably be deleted without reducing the amount of information in the encyclopedia. However reverts have occured when his material is deleted.
Be careful, he has his supporters.
Well I'm not doing anything without the agreement of the majority of other wikipedians. I'm arguing that putting *any* of his text is a type of bias, and unfare for other contributers who want their work published in this way (In my example even if others will probably dismiss my "writings" as psuedo-science or just utter nonsense).
I think we should start a vote,
* either Larry's text is removed (or transfered to ideapedia/allpedia previously suggested). I am willing to compormise even more to say it wouldn't be linked to and wouldn't possibly be found by a casual wikipedia user. (i.e. on searches, inlined in other articles like "knowledge" etc..)
* or: Larry's text is adopted and inlined/linked as "de facto" philosophical literature. (As it is today, or even more) and "peer-reviewed" by wiki readers.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
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
Rotem Dan 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 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
In this particular case it follows the Wikipedia article and is entitled, "philosophical discussion, larry's text"
Fred
From: Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 05:56:26 -0700 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text on the "Knowledge" article
Rotem Dan 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 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@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
URL?
Fred Bauder wrote:
In this particular case it follows the Wikipedia article and is entitled, "philosophical discussion, larry's text"
Fred
From: Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 05:56:26 -0700 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text on the "Knowledge" article
Rotem Dan 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 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@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
URL?
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/knowledge
From: Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 06:31:14 -0700 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text on the "Knowledge" article
URL?
Fred Bauder wrote:
In this particular case it follows the Wikipedia article and is entitled, "philosophical discussion, larry's text"
Fred
From: Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 05:56:26 -0700 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text on the "Knowledge" article
Rotem Dan 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 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@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I apologize to everyone, had I read more closely, I would have understood that we are discussing this page:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge
I certainly agree that the "Larry's text" portion of the article needs to be moved and edited into encyclopedic form. It's an informal set of notes for a philosophy 101 lecture, not an encyclopedia article.
There isn't any particular "privileged" reason why it's there -- it's a historical artifact of very early development. It should be edited or (probably) moved.
The point has been raised that Larry's discussion of "knowledge" is centered around justified true belief, Gettier problems, and the like, rather than a more broad discussion which might encompass Eastern views and so on. It seems that this portion of text might be salvaged by formalization and by moving it to something like "Knowledge in Analytical Philosophy".
(Note: I don't recommend that title, exactly, because I'm not sure that 'analytical' is the right word. I'm not a professional philosopher!)
--Jimbo
--- 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
Sure, yeah, none of what you're saying is new or controversial. I agree, and I guess just about everyone does.
--Jimbo
Rotem Dan wrote:
--- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
Sure, yeah, none of what you're saying is new or controversial. I agree, and I guess just about everyone does.
Ok, then what is the prefered course of action on these matters? regarding the fact that almost all of Wikipedia's articles about philosophy (and possibly other subjects) suffer from some or all or this faults?
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.
I'm reverting myself to the "Ignore all rules" guideline.
Ohh what a relief :-)
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
Rotem Dan wrote:
Ok, then what is the prefered course of action on these matters?
"Edit this page" :-)
It's good to be sensitive and kind to the work of others, and to try on talk pages to be understanding and accomodating. And it's also good to "Be bold in updating pages". Somewhere in the tension between those two lies the genuis of wikipedia.
I am beginning to think these are just defects inherited from mistreatment in the early days of wikipedia.
I wouldn't use the word "mistreatment", but it's certainly true that Wikipedia can be improved, and in some areas it can be markedly improved with a little bit of effort.
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.
A love for the task at hand, and the fundamental and unshakable convention that the bulk of Wikipedia participants want to do the right thing will carry us all a long way.
Earlier, you posted in anger with what appeared to me to be a basic assumption that we're trying to be biased or sucky or something. Such an approach -- leading with hostility rather than love -- tends to raise hackles unnecessarily. We're all guilty of it on occassion -- no big deal. I'm just making a recommendation here. :-)
--Jimbo
Earlier, you posted in anger with what appeared to me to be a basic assumption that we're trying to be biased or sucky or something. Such an approach -- leading with hostility rather than love -- tends to raise hackles unnecessarily. We're all guilty of it on occassion -- no big deal. I'm just making a recommendation here. :-)
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".
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
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".
Or maybe just a sophisticatedly-concealed troll.. some people just can't understand the depth of their un-informednesness (new word) and lack of education (in my case)
My self-doubts again :)
Rotem
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
...un-informednesness (new word)...
This is a bit off-topic, but I believe the word is malcognance.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
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
Rotem Dan wrote:
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:
? Pretty much everything you've said is perfectly consistent with existing policies and guidelines, as far as I know. So I don't think you're updating those.
- 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.
Be careful. Rather than phrase this as a rule, it should be phrased as a suggested route to achieve NPOV. Achieving NPOV on matters-in-themselves is often more difficult than achieving NPOV on what-has-been-said-about-matters-in-themselves.
But this is not a new technique, we have long called it "going meta".
--Jimbo
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).
We should acknowledge, before writing the things about the Western views, that other Eastern views exist, and ask readers to report on it, mixing it with the current article in the fashion described in the first proposed addition for Wikipedia policy.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
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. I can't think of how this would curtail anonymity. LittleDan
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
At 17:55 18/04/2003 -0700, LittleDan wrote:
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.
They do. They're linked to from contributions on Recent Changes, or else you can directly edit a URL to get something like http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk%3A123.45.678.90
It would be nice if they were linked to from a anon user's contributions page as well, but heck, I'm not going to program it.
lp (camembert) WikiKarma: [[Peter Blake (artist)]]
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?
--- Lee Pilich pilich@btopenworld.com wrote:
They do. They're linked to from contributions on Recent Changes, or else you can directly edit a URL to get something like
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk%3A123.45.678.90
It would be nice if they were linked to from a anon user's contributions page as well, but heck, I'm not going to program it.
lp (camembert) WikiKarma: [[Peter Blake (artist)]]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
On Fri, 2003-04-18 at 19:35, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
Also, on the recent changes page, for some reason, it doesn't let me just click on the ip adress of the editing user.
Could you be more specific? Clicking on an IP address in recentchanges should give you the user contributions list for that IP.
If it's not doing that, then you're going to have to describe what it *is* doing.
Instead, I have to go into the article, then into the page history, then click on the IP adress.
Should work exactly the same as on RC, but note that there aren't talk links provided next to the username/IP links.
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?
Same as for logged-in users, yes.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Oh, now I realised that the problem is only on [[Special:New Pages]]. Could you fix it there?
Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:On Fri, 2003-04-18 at 19:35, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
Also, on the recent changes page, for some reason, it doesn't let me just click on the ip adress of the editing user.
Could you be more specific? Clicking on an IP address in recentchanges should give you the user contributions list for that IP.
If it's not doing that, then you're going to have to describe what it *is* doing.
Instead, I have to go into the article, then into the page history, then click on the IP adress.
Should work exactly the same as on RC, but note that there aren't talk links provided next to the username/IP links.
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?
Same as for logged-in users, yes.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
ATTACHMENT part 2 application/pgp-signature name=signature.asc
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
No, we shouldn't. That's why Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Others with more knowledge can add what they know, which we do not. It's not a user's responsibility to cover all material if they don't know it. Zoe
Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:> 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).
We should acknowledge, before writing the things about the Western views, that other Eastern views exist, and ask readers to report on it, mixing it with the current article in the fashion described in the first proposed addition for Wikipedia policy.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
I wasn't saying that anyone writing an article on knowledge should write a book of every philosophy of knowledge. I'm just saying that people should acknowledge that there are others, and ask people to write on those. For example:
The literal definition of '''knowledge''' is something that can be known, but there are many other philosophies about what knowledge really is and what it can be.
==Epistemology== Epistemology says knowledge is...
==Other philosophies about knowledge== There are many other philosophies about knowledge. (''More to come'')
Do you write just from memory? Your post seems to imply it. I usually research to find most of the content of my articles.
--- Zoe zoecomnena@yahoo.com wrote:
No, we shouldn't. That's why Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Others with more knowledge can add what they know, which we do not. It's not a user's responsibility to cover all material if they don't know it. Zoe
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
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
Rotem Dan rotem_dan@yahoo.com wrote:Just stumbled upon the "Knowledge" article, and was hit by shock and amazement:
"You come to a gas station and the gas station attendant tells you: "I just heard from someone that there was a big accident just around the big curve on State Route 99. .."
"So let's get down to business, and ask: What is knowledge? How can I define the word or the concept, 'knowledge'?"
"In other words, by the word "knowledge," we don't mean simply whatever is generally regarded as true these days by most experts"
In other words, a western-americo-centric-article-written-solely-in- the-point-of-view-an-almost-obscure-philosopher.. (If this sounds like trolling, then I apologize, I am pretty angry right now.. :| )
With all the respect for wikipedia's founders, please do not allow these tribute pages on wikipedia. You-state-yourself-that-wikipedia-is-an-encyclopedia-,not an-"Ideapedia"-or-tribute-shrine-for-your-beloved-favorite- philosopher. (Again apologizing for the trolling attitude)
Please consider leaving these type of texts as cites, or book references (drived by the usual wiki-consensus).
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@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
I'm still behind on my email, sorry.
Larry's text on the knowledge article reports on knowledge from an epistemological point of view. Epistemology is a very western belief, but even many westerners (me, for example) don't believe it. Larry's text doesn't report on any of the other philosophies, most of which are from eastern cultures
--- Zoe zoecomnena@yahoo.com wrote:
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
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
So what? It's Wikipedia, not stone. Add the information that's missing, don't just sit there and bitch about it. Or, are we back to the philosophy, "If it doesn't agree with my world view it shouldn't be here, and I'm not going to do anything to fix it." I've seen that here a lot. Zoe
Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:I'm still behind on my email, sorry.
Larry's text on the knowledge article reports on knowledge from an epistemological point of view. Epistemology is a very western belief, but even many westerners (me, for example) don't believe it. Larry's text doesn't report on any of the other philosophies, most of which are from eastern cultures
--- Zoe wrote:
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
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
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@yahoo.com wrote:
So what? It's Wikipedia, not stone. Add the information that's missing, don't just sit there and bitch about it. Or, are we back to the philosophy, "If it doesn't agree with my world view it shouldn't be here, and I'm not going to do anything to fix it." I've seen that here a lot. Zoe
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
Please edit the article if you are moved to, but don't trash it. I wrote most of the first portion and certainly will expect you to incorporate the material in that part in any rewrite you do. A rewrite that simply trashes the whole preceeding article is just an invitation to trouble. I agree that it would be very difficult to incorporate Larry's text, but there is a body of knowledge behind what he wrote which with research could be set forth.
Fred
From: Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 21:59:21 -0700 (PDT) To: wikien-l@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@yahoo.com wrote:
So what? It's Wikipedia, not stone. Add the information that's missing, don't just sit there and bitch about it. Or, are we back to the philosophy, "If it doesn't agree with my world view it shouldn't be here, and I'm not going to do anything to fix it." I've seen that here a lot. Zoe
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Your text is fine, I wouldn't delete it. But the first two paragraphs of your text seem to be from a specific point of view. Is your text from an epistemological point of view? Even though your text was concise, it used too much of a definitive tone.
Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:Please edit the article if you are moved to, but don't trash it. I wrote most of the first portion and certainly will expect you to incorporate the material in that part in any rewrite you do. A rewrite that simply trashes the whole preceeding article is just an invitation to trouble. I agree that it would be very difficult to incorporate Larry's text, but there is a body of knowledge behind what he wrote which with research could be set forth.
Fred
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
Well, see what you can do. I mostly make stuff up as I go along, so it's hardly part of the "canon"
Fred
From: Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 10:13:52 -0700 (PDT) To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text on the "Knowledge" article
Your text is fine, I wouldn't delete it. But the first two paragraphs of your text seem to be from a specific point of view. Is your text from an epistemological point of view? Even though your text was concise, it used too much of a definitive tone.
Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote: Please edit the article if you are moved to, but don't trash it. I wrote most of the first portion and certainly will expect you to incorporate the material in that part in any rewrite you do. A rewrite that simply trashes the whole preceeding article is just an invitation to trouble. I agree that it would be very difficult to incorporate Larry's text, but there is a body of knowledge behind what he wrote which with research could be set forth.
Fred
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum http://rd.yahoo.com/platinum/evt=8162/*http://platinum.yahoo.com/splash.htm l - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop http://rd.yahoo.com/platinum/evt=8162/*http://platinum.yahoo.com/splash.htm l !
--- Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:
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.
Sometimes articles get so long and convoluted, filled with page-long quotes etc., that radical rewriting is necessary. And that has always been encouraged. See [[Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages]].
Axel
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com
Rotem Dan wrote:
With all the respect for wikipedia's founders, please do not allow these tribute pages on wikipedia. You-state-yourself-that-wikipedia-is-an-encyclopedia-,not an-"Ideapedia"-or-tribute-shrine-for-your-beloved-favorite- philosopher. (Again apologizing for the trolling attitude)
It isn't a tribute, AFAIK. Larry put a large quantity of what are, basically, lecture notes on Wikipedia to kick-start the philosophy area. It says *somewhere* that anyone should feel free to kick these into shape! If you feel you can rewrite them - do!
--- tarquin tarquin@planetunreal.com wrote:
Rotem Dan wrote:
With all the respect for wikipedia's founders,
please
do not allow these tribute pages on wikipedia.
You-state-yourself-that-wikipedia-is-an-encyclopedia-,not
an-"Ideapedia"-or-tribute-shrine-for-your-beloved-favorite-
philosopher. (Again apologizing for the trolling attitude)
It isn't a tribute, AFAIK. Larry put a large quantity of what are, basically, lecture notes on Wikipedia to kick-start the philosophy area. It says *somewhere* that anyone should feel free to kick these into shape! If you feel you can rewrite them - do!
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..)
It's like constructing the basis of a round building, and saying: "I know this is what I could do so be bold an build over this..". What If another person wants a square building or triangular building? or maybe they want a small house and maybe there's a peculiar person who wants to make this a bridge?
Think about it..
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
Rotem Dan wrote:
It isn't a tribute, AFAIK. Larry put a large quantity of what are, basically, lecture notes on Wikipedia to kick-start the philosophy area. It says *somewhere* that anyone should feel free to kick these into shape! If you feel you can rewrite them - do!
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..)
I gave Larry's text a cursory read a long time ago, so I could be wrong. But it seemed to me that it was a general overview, written in a fairly informal style, rather than Larry's *own* opinion. and it's the best we've got on Wikipedia so far - better than nothing.
and it's the best we've got on Wikipedia so far - better than nothing.
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
At this point, may I suggest you either edit the article or drop the subject. If as you say you don't know the area perhaps you should edit articles in areas you do know. Generic articles in the philosophical area depend to a certain extent on life experience so almost anyone can edit them, but as you implicitly point out not all experience is significant.
Fred
From: Rotem Dan rotem_dan@yahoo.com Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 03:48:25 -0700 (PDT) To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text
and it's the best we've got on Wikipedia so far - better than nothing.
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@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Rotem Dan wrote:
and it's the best we've got on Wikipedia so far - better than nothing.
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..
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.
you should grant *everyone* to put their own text
well, we already do.... note the "Edit text of this page" link ;-)
Wikipedia does not allow most people to insert their personal views on any matter into any article. If Larry has to a certain extent been an exception because of unique circumstances, the general rule remains valid. Simply edit his material as you would anyone elses, with proper respect and eventualy the problem will go away. After all Larry's texts are lectures from undergraduate philosophy courses and do have value that can be added to.
Fre
From: tarquin tarquin@planetunreal.com Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 13:05:14 +0100 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text
Rotem Dan wrote:
and it's the best we've got on Wikipedia so far - better than nothing.
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..
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.
you should grant *everyone* to put their own text
well, we already do.... note the "Edit text of this page" link ;-)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- tarquin tarquin@planetunreal.com wrote:
So, reiterating what I've said twice: it's not "larry's OWN text". It's been called "Larry's text" as an abbreviation.
Hmm.. I think I overreacted to the use of the "'s", like Larry "owns" this text, still, I think wikipedia's ethics should not allow contributors to write under their own name, this is a part of the GFDL. If Larry or anyone wants to be recognized, they can publish this on their personal website.
Please don't let's turn this into a huge issue where there is none. oh, wait, it already has been.
It is not a "huge" issue, just something i'm trying to point out.
Maybe it's not about Larry (nothing here is personal anyway). Maybe it's about the introduction of highly pre-mature (and somewhat biased and misorienting) *SCIENTIFIC* texts/text-books/papers into the 'pedia, why should this be done? If the contributor already knows his/her addition is of a specialized field, in which chances are low that fellow peers literate in the field will review and modify, I think they shouldn't have added that in the first place.
I'd rather 20 lines of accurate information, than 500 lines of "unreviewed-unsupported-somewhat-scientific-text-of- undergraduate-lectures"
Wikipedia seems to work for encyclopedic articles, not for scientific papers or text-books. As for the Knowledge article, I think a book reference would have been suffice.
you should grant *everyone* to put their own text
well, we already do.... note the "Edit text of this page" link ;-)
Unfortunately, I am not a philosopher (or pretending to be) and that is not the point.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
This would be a great place for the ideapedia or the allpedia, which could exist if someone responded about them.
Rotem Dan rotem_dan@yahoo.com wrote: Wikipedia seems to work for encyclopedic articles, not for scientific papers or text-books. As for the Knowledge article, I think a book reference would have been suffice.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
Why is all of this being discussed in the mailing list, instead of on the article's Talk page? Zoe
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.