On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 10/2/10 6:01 AM, SlimVirgin at slimvirgin@gmail.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.
David, I think one of the reasons that biologists and others may be happier than philosophers to edit Wikipedia is that everyone assumes they know something about the latter and don't need to study for it,
<snip>
Academics don't have the time or patience to explain basic points for years on end to people who feel that reading books or papers about the subject is unnecessary. I'm sure the biology experts would give up too if their area of expertise were undermined in such a basic way.
Very well said, SV. I encounter the same thing in my field. You cannot teach someone who will not be taught. You cannot teach someone something they think they already know.
Sure you can, if you can just get their attention. This is the basic method behind good instructional and popular writing, as well as such specific genres as biography. You need to provide an especially attractive format and very clear presentation in a manner that implies that the presentation is expected to be entertaining, to get people started reading or listening, and then to keep them going provide intrinsically interesting material and clear dramatic verbal and pictorial illustration, and write or speak in language and manner that is at the right level of sophistication--a slightly better informed friend is usually the right level, and aim at an overall effect when finished that w;il give people a feeling of satisfaction and increased confidence.
It's not easy. Few people can do this really well, and they are only occasionally professional academics. Good advertising people can do it; good journalists can do it; masters of popular non-fiction can do it; some fiction writers can even do it. It may be beyond practical levels of community participation to expect it in Wikipedia, at least on a routine basis. (Though we do have one additional factor--the attractive browsing effect. )
People do change their mind. People can be persuaded. But there are almost no articles in Wikipedia written well enough to could persuade people to pay attention to the arguments. Probably that should not be our goal. for I don't think we can accomplish it by an assortment of amateurs. Probably our basic principle is right:aim for NPOV, for those people who want it. We're always going to be dull reading--even the best professional encyclopedias usually have been. Anything more than that belongs in other media.