[Wikipedia-l] Another canon blast

[Ray Saintonge]

Michael Snow wrote:

> I would only agree that there is a canon of knowledge, perhaps, in the 
> same sense that Plato's Forms have some kind of existence. It's an 
> ideal, and not easily attainable. And you rightly point out that the 
> question of getting any canon accepted is the real problem. Wikipedia 
> is a good try at reaching acceptance for a canon of knowledge, and I 
> don't mind your "definition" of it.
>
> Part of my objection to the idea of a canon is that the term *canon* 
> is loaded, if you'll pardon all my puns here. In academia, it's 
> strongly associated with a canon of Western civilization, particularly 
> in the arts, that has ignored knowledge from many other cultures. Part 
> of this draws on the religious usage of canon, which tends to treat 
> knowledge as a closed book, an idea which has dangerous implications 
> for the Wikipedia project.

The application of the Western canon is just as much a problem in the 
sciences.  A lot of material in the science/pseudoscience borderlands is 
like that.  The meridians of accupuncture make no sense at all in terms 
of Western anatomy.  The West is often too tied up with syllogisms and 
its need to explain why something happens.  In the absence of an 
explanation we often draw the false conclusion that the phenomenon is 
invalid.  Perhaps we are too content to see the flat polarized images on 
the cave wall.

> Which is why I believe that allowing anybody to edit a page has to 
> remain one of the basic rules of Wikipedia. I think it's always 
> possible that new knowledge will come along, and we have to be able to 
> include it. As a logical conclusion, I doubt very much that any 
> article will ever reach a point of sufficient perfection for us to 
> protect it from editing on the grounds that future edits would only be 
> harmful.

The important thing here is to avoid hasty judgements about new ideas.

Ec

>