[WikiEN-l] Larry's text on the "Knowledge" article

[Daniel Ehrenberg]

My understanding was that npov wasnt a consensus,
rather it was a collection of opinions, each presented
as OPINIONS, not facts, and that often, consensuses
were never reached, as they are usually never reached
in political or philosophical debate. There are many
different ideas of what art is, and as many as
possible should be presented.  The knowledge article
is still POV as of the time of this writing, and it
will remain so unill people present their arguments of
what knowledge is.  Personally, I don't believe with a
word on the knowledge article, and I plan on changing
it to include my philosophies. It should include every
philosophy. Don't be afraid to write yours down. It's
not POV unless you present it as a fact, like Larry
did.

--- Rotem Dan <rotem_dan at yahoo.com> wrote:
> OK, ok you guys don't seem to get the point of my
> post. What I meant was that ANY philosophical text,
> is
> inappropriate for an ENCYCLOPEDIA, because it's
> obviously cannot become consensus, and will always
> remain merely a POV. 
> 
> It's like saying that by creating a wiki trying to
> "define" *what* is "art" , you will eventually (and
> ultimately) get to the point of consensus. that
> everyone will agree: "Yes, exactly, that is art".
> Great, all our problems solved, the wiki said Art is
> defined by X, Thought is Y and Knowledge is Z.
> 
> Some things just shouldn't be written into a wiki.
> 
> Rotem.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com