[Wikipedia-l] pitching an idea

[Steve Lefevre]

Wouter Steenbeek wrote:

>
> Steve's proposal is interesting and can be defended from a 
> philosophical point of view. Indeed most philosophers involved with 
> science agree that objectivity is an illusion, and the 
> quasi-objectivity we reach in e.g. encyclopaedias is only a broad 
> consensus within one culture. On some topics, everyone agrees, on 
> other ones, people hold divergent views. That justifies splitting a 
> controversial topic.
>
> On the other hand, the predominant culture expects encyclopaedias to 
> reach a convergent (quasi-)objectivity and therefore both to speak 
> with one voice on the same topic and omit statements that are 
> generally considerd "opinions" rather than "facts", or even nonsense. 
> For Wikipedia in a postmodern setting would have to abandon the 
> hitherto drawn line between facts and opinions.
>
> Therefore I oppose this idea, since it goes counter to the 
> conventions, which are per se accepted by consensus, applying to any 
> encyclopaedia, and will hardly be helpful to achieve the "Brittannica 
> or better"-aim formulated by Jimbo.
>
Do you oppose this idea as a replacement for the current wikipedia or 
wikipedia system, or just think this project should never exist ?

I think that if we allow multiple branches, then neutral, highly rated 
articles that many people have signed off on will emerge.

Steve