Well, if you consult Britannica what they do in philosophical articles is set forth the history of philosophical thought on a subject. Here we try, usually unsuccessully, to address the issue itself. However, in the absence of a recognized canon of knowledge on a topic our attempts are unlikely to satisfy.
Knowledge is doable though.
As to art, right at the beginning of work on the Oxford Dictionary, they hit that rock. And more or less did it.
Fred
From: Rotem Dan rotem_dan@yahoo.com Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 14:08:31 -0700 (PDT) To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text on the "Knowledge" article
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 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l