[Foundation-l] Organization on Wikipedia thatdealswithcontentissues.

[Peter Damian]

From: "Andrea Zanni" <zanni.andrea84 at gmail.com>
> I do think it is easier
> to understand and comprehend the procedures, ideas and mechanisms of
> Wikipedia (for many reasons).
> From what I've experienced, it is generally more difficult to explain 
> these
> things to humanities scholars
> that stm scholars.

I'm very surprised at this.  When I started editing Wikipedia in 2003 I 
immediately read the NPOV rules and was struck by their similarity to the 
way I was taught to approach writing a paper.  Not surprising actually, as I 
think Larry drafted the original rules, and he has the same background as I. 
The same would be true for someone with a background in textual criticism or 
history.

I think the real problem is that a subject like philosophy *appears* easier 
to learn and to write about than mathematics.  I remember from teaching 
students they would write acres of self-indulgent rubbish and you had to 
gently explain that there were clear rules and principles, just like the 
hard sciences. I'll quote this again from a well-known philosopher who left 
Wikipedia some years ago

"Philosophy: I'm a philosopher; why don't I edit the article on my subject? 
Because it's hopeless. I've tried at various times, and each time have given 
up in depressed disgust. Philosophy seems to attract aggressive zealots who 
know a little (often a very little), who lack understanding of key concepts, 
terms, etc., and who attempt to take over the article (and its Talk page) 
with rambling, ground-shifting, often barely comprehensible rants against 
those who disagree with them. Life's too short. I just tell my students and 
anyone else I know not to read the Wikipedia article except for a laugh. 
It's one of those areas where the ochlocratic nature of Wikipedia really 
comes a cropper".