Larry Sanger lsanger@nupedia.com writes:
Here's the problem, though. Again, I think KQ has the right approach, but it doesn't solve every problem along these lines. With all due respect, in my opinion, Fred really doesn't know what he's talking about on this topic, and it requires a great deal of patience to go through an article from someone who does not understand the subject (but thinks he does).
I doubt if anyone can say for himself that he really understood the concept of reality. My attitude towards topics like this is always a sort of humility - many great people have thought about it but didn't arrive at one generally agreed definition, so why should I? and that would be the first rule for editing in such a field: if you think you've understood it wholly you are probably wrong. Maybe you have understood Kant or Plato's conception - but reality as a whole?
Reasonable people do not react in the way that Fred has reacted, I think. Suppose I were to have written an article on something I know a little about, but which I am very far from being an expert--digital cameras, say. Then someone who were more of an expert were to came along and said, "Look, this article is totally garbage. You didn't get half of the stuff right," and then replaced it with something that was better-informed, I'd like to think that I would totally understand. Moreover, if the person took the time to go through, line by line, what was wrong with my article, I would probably be abjectly apologetic.
This depends. If I wrote an article and some expert came around, reverting all I did and writing a new, I can imagine two possible reactions: either he suceeded to say what I wanted to say but failed. Then I sit back, admire his work and say: fine :-). or he says something completely different which goes against my concepts of the topic. He did better in his approach than I but I feel there is more to say which he left out and which was - even inadequately expressed - in my old part he deleted. I think Fred and you are in situation 2 at the moment.
I'm not talking about the whole project. In this article, he certainly has been trying to push a specific agenda, though it's possible he doesn't quite realize that.
The impression I got was that Fred tried a broader approach to the topic while you tried to limit the article on philosophical concepts. Both approaches are IMHO legitim. Second: while you tried to give an account of the discussions about reality, Fred tried to give definitions - which in the way he did will IMHO inevitably fail. Maybe you should seperately discuss these two points: what should be the content and how should be the form.
greetings, elian