[Wikipedia-l] How would you deal with this problem?

[elian]

Larry Sanger <lsanger at nupedia.com> writes:

> Here's the problem, though.  Again, I think KQ has the right approach, but
> it doesn't solve every problem along these lines.  With all due respect,
> in my opinion, Fred really doesn't know what he's talking about on this
> topic, and it requires a great deal of patience to go through an article
> from someone who does not understand the subject (but thinks he does).

I doubt if anyone can say for himself that he really understood the
concept of reality. My attitude towards topics like this is always a sort
of humility - many great people have thought about it but didn't arrive at
one generally agreed definition, so why should I? and that would be the
first rule for editing in such a field: if you think you've understood it
wholly you are probably wrong. Maybe you have understood Kant or Plato's
conception - but reality as a whole?

> Reasonable people do not react in the way that Fred has reacted, I think.
> Suppose I were to have written an article on something I know a little
> about, but which I am very far from being an expert--digital cameras, say.
> Then someone who were more of an expert were to came along and said,
> "Look, this article is totally garbage.  You didn't get half of the stuff
> right," and then replaced it with something that was better-informed, I'd
> like to think that I would totally understand.  Moreover, if the person
> took the time to go through, line by line, what was wrong with my article,
> I would probably be abjectly apologetic.

This depends. If I wrote an article and some expert came around, reverting
all I did and writing a new, I can imagine two possible reactions: either
he suceeded to say what I wanted to say but failed. Then I sit back,
admire his work and say: fine :-). or  he says something completely
different which goes against my concepts of the topic. He did better in
his approach than I but I feel there is more to say which he left out and which
was - even inadequately expressed - in my old part he deleted. I think
Fred and you are in situation 2 at the moment.

> I'm not talking about the whole project.  In this article, he certainly
> has been trying to push a specific agenda, though it's possible he doesn't
> quite realize that.

The impression I got was that Fred tried a broader approach to the topic
while you tried to limit the article on philosophical concepts. Both
approaches are IMHO legitim.
Second: while you tried to give an account of the discussions about reality, 
Fred tried to give definitions - which in the way he did will IMHO
inevitably fail. Maybe you should seperately discuss these two points:
what should be the content and how should be the form.

greetings,
elian
-- 
Wenn Gott gewollt haette, dass die Menschen nackt
herumlaufen, wuerden sie nackt zur Welt kommen.
- oscar wilde