Sure, yeah, none of what you're saying is new or controversial. I agree, and I guess just about everyone does.
--Jimbo
Rotem Dan wrote:
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
rather than a more broad discussion which might encompass Eastern views and so on.
This is only one of the different points I brought up, I will try to sum them all:
- Giving the western philosophical views of
"Knowledge" should be paired by eastern ones (In the same amount of detail) -- I don't expect this to be done soon, as I've said on previous posts, the majority of writers origin from western cultures, but this should change.
- Creating a wiki that tries to form a consensus
regarding the matter itself (by addressing the matter directly, not the different views and historical timeline) is an impossible task.
- Encyclopedic articles should not try define the
matter (e.g. "What is knowledge?") unless it is trivial (Like in Wikipedia's Knowledge article, as opposed to Brittanica)
- Encyclopedic article should cite and base the ideas
and concepts presented, preferably by reference to known experts in the field (In this case World-recognized philosophers)
- One person's thought process may lead into
completely different "philosophical" discussion. So stating that the "following discussion" presented is the only "correct" one is a biased treatment of the subject.
- In this specific case (as an example), I argued
that the latter 80% of the article doesn't add a significant insight on the matter, in proportion to the amount of text given. (Quantity vs. Quality)
- I propose another definition of what Wikipedia is
NOT: Wikipedia is NOT a collaborative project of writing scientific papers or text-books, or any debatable cognitive material for that matter.
I hope this explains it
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