On 2 October 2010 10:28, Peter Damian peter.damian@btinternet.com wrote:
From: "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com
That [...] doesn't answer the question I asked: *what* about the approach in this paper wouldn't work for philosophy, in your opinion? Please be specific. http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1000...
On the assumption that there is negative answer to Step 1 - namely, there is a serious problem with the content and quality of philosophy articles in Wikipedia (I think you agree that is not in doubt), then the answer is clearly that none of these approaches have worked so far for philosophy, either singly or collectively. Does that answer your question? The answer seemed so obvious that I didn't give it. I suppose you will reply that it is in some way the fault of the philosophers. This, as I poetically suggested, would be like blaming the plants that didn't like acid soil, for not growing in my garden. I repeat: it is unfair to blame the plants.
At this point it may be useful to distinguish "fault", "blame" and "agent who could take action." Philosophers are not passive planted creatures, but active human agents who can decide to do something or not.
Your aim (better philosophy articles) might be realised by changing Wikipedia to suit philosophers, but it's reasonably clear from this thread that this is unlikely to happen. This means alternate approaches might be worth considering, to the end of better philosophy articles in Wikipedia.
As such, and in the interest of better philosophy articles on Wikipedia, could you please go through that list and tell me which ones philosophers in particular will balk at? Not just you personally (though that too), but others.
- d.