Michael Snow wrote:
I would only agree that there is a canon of knowledge,
perhaps, in the
same sense that Plato's Forms have some kind of existence. It's an
ideal, and not easily attainable. And you rightly point out that the
question of getting any canon accepted is the real problem. Wikipedia
is a good try at reaching acceptance for a canon of knowledge, and I
don't mind your "definition" of it.
Part of my objection to the idea of a canon is that the term *canon*
is loaded, if you'll pardon all my puns here. In academia, it's
strongly associated with a canon of Western civilization, particularly
in the arts, that has ignored knowledge from many other cultures. Part
of this draws on the religious usage of canon, which tends to treat
knowledge as a closed book, an idea which has dangerous implications
for the Wikipedia project.
The application of the Western canon is just as much a problem in the
sciences. A lot of material in the science/pseudoscience borderlands is
like that. The meridians of accupuncture make no sense at all in terms
of Western anatomy. The West is often too tied up with syllogisms and
its need to explain why something happens. In the absence of an
explanation we often draw the false conclusion that the phenomenon is
invalid. Perhaps we are too content to see the flat polarized images on
the cave wall.
Which is why I believe that allowing anybody to edit a
page has to
remain one of the basic rules of Wikipedia. I think it's always
possible that new knowledge will come along, and we have to be able to
include it. As a logical conclusion, I doubt very much that any
article will ever reach a point of sufficient perfection for us to
protect it from editing on the grounds that future edits would only be
harmful.
The important thing here is to avoid hasty judgements about new ideas.
Ec