[Foundation-l] Fwd: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

[Peter Damian]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "SlimVirgin" <slimvirgin at gmail.com>
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 1:54 AM
Subject: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?


> On 2 October 2010 22:44, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>

> But there has to be a willingness to learn, which is what's absent
> from the philosophy articles. Non-experts -- including experts in
> other areas -- believe philosophical positions can somehow be worked
> out from first principles.

This is exactly the problem.  Really aggressive and belligerent editors who 
think that because it is 'philosophy', then they can vandalise any article 
they like.  This is a problem with philosophy more than any other 
discipline.



> So I mostly stay away from the philosophy articles on WP. Most of the
> editors I know of with a background in philosophy do the same, or have
> left in disgust or been banned!

This is correct. I have been keeping a tally.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Goodman" <dgoodmanny at gmail.com>
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

>> Very well said, SV. I encounter the same thing in my field. You cannot 
>> teach
>> someone who will not be taught. You cannot teach someone something they
>> think they already know.


> Sure you can, if you can just get their attention. This is the basic
> method behind good instructional and popular writing, as well as such
> specific genres as biography.  [snip]

I agree with you on that whole para, but we were not talking about the 
problem of writing clearly to a non-technical audience.  We were talking 
about very aggressive editors who know absolutely nothing of the subject, 
and drive away specialist editors.

>We're always going to be dull reading--even
> the best professional encyclopedias usually have been.   Anything more
> than that belongs in other media.

The problem is not that.  It is that the philosophy articles contain 
material errors
http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/10/20-most-important-philosophy-articles.html
http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/08/argumentum-ad-baculum.html
http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/06/avicennian-logic.html

or are materially incomplete

http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/06/william-of-ockham.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duns_Scotus

Peter