----- Original Message -----
From: "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On 27 September 2010 15:17, Nathan
<nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
A few posts back Peter linked to several
philosophy-trained editors
who had left Wikipedia, representing them as examples of the problems
he has identified.
I think it's worth reposting here what one of those editors gave as
his reasons for leaving:
So what can we learn from these clearly stated objections, and how do
they apply to the general problem of articles in the humanities?
This appears to be the objections of someone who thinks an
encyclopedia is a journal in the field, or should work like one. As
WJohnson has pointed out, Wikipedia is not a venue for academic
self-promotion either.
You can hardly move on Wikipedia without tripping over experts in
whatever topic you're editing. Why are there any experts on Wikipedia?
- d.
I have already pointed out (and you agreed) that Wikipedia requires a
different style and approach from the one of, say, the SEP.
Wikipedia is not a venue for academic
self-promotion either.
It is supposed to be a comprehensive and reliable reference source.
You can hardly move on Wikipedia without tripping over
experts in
whatever topic you're editing.
There are only a handful of experts on philosophy in Wikipedia, and they are
pretty demoralized. When are you going to clean up this mess, David?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age
You said you were going to, some time. Or this one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence
If there are so many experts, why are these articles in such a complete
mess? We are not talking about a 'journal in the field'. We are talking
about a basic introductory article to a subject which in any comprehensive
reference work would be treated with care and respect. Why is there no
proper article on Theology?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology . And why
is this one - a basic subject - such a mess
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology ?
Without experts to tell you there is a problem, you aren't going to realise
there is one, I suppose.
With every kind wish.
Peter