[Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

David Gerard dgerard at gmail.com
Sat Oct 2 09:34:27 UTC 2010

On 2 October 2010 10:28, Peter Damian <peter.damian at btinternet.com> wrote:
> From: "David Gerard" <dgerard at 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.
>> http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1000941

> On the assumption that there is negative answer to Step 1 - namely, there is
> a serious problem with the content and quality of philosophy articles in
> Wikipedia (I think you agree that is not in doubt), then the answer is
> clearly that none of these approaches have worked so far for philosophy,
> either singly or collectively.  Does that answer your question?  The answer
> seemed so obvious that I didn't give it.
> I suppose you will reply that it is in some way the fault of the
> philosophers.  This, as I poetically suggested, would be like blaming the
> plants that didn't like acid soil, for not growing in my garden.  I repeat:
> it is unfair to blame the plants.

At this point it may be useful to distinguish "fault", "blame" and
"agent who could take action." Philosophers are not passive planted
creatures, but active human agents who can decide to do something or

Your aim (better philosophy articles) might be realised by changing
Wikipedia to suit philosophers, but it's reasonably clear from this
thread that this is unlikely to happen. This means alternate
approaches might be worth considering, to the end of better philosophy
articles in Wikipedia.

As such, and in the interest of better philosophy articles on
Wikipedia, could you please go through that list and tell me which
ones philosophers in particular will balk at? Not just you personally
(though that too), but others.

- d.

More information about the foundation-l mailing list