 Praxeology |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
  |
| EricBarbour |
 Wed 7th December 2011, 8:10am
Post
#1
|
 blah  Group: Regulars Posts: 5,919 Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am Member No.: 5,066 WP user page - talk check - contribs  |
Y'know, "Wikipedia" is a gross misnomer. Better name for it would be "Libertaripedia".
Or maybe "Raving-Flake-Randboy-pedia". Take, for example, the word "praxeology". Wiktionary gives it a neutral meaning. It's a term from epistemology, which means I would classify it under general philosophy. Okay? But Wikipedia turns it into a von Mises/libertarian magic word. With an "Austrian School" infobox. Now I wonder how many other articles in Category: Epistemology have been given this von Mises/Rothbard libertarian slant. You're right, PD. Wikipedia's philosophy coverage is nuts. That's the only word I can think of for it. |
   |
 
|
| Peter Damian |
Wed 7th December 2011, 1:57pm
Post
#2
|
 I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin! Group: Regulars Posts: 4,400 Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm Member No.: 4,212 WP user page - talk check - contribs |
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 7th December 2011, 8:10am)  Y'know, "Wikipedia" is a gross misnomer. Better name for it would be "Libertaripedia". Or maybe "Raving-Flake-Randboy-pedia". Take, for example, the word "praxeology". Wiktionary gives it a neutral meaning. It's a term from epistemology, which means I would classify it under general philosophy. Okay? But Wikipedia turns it into a von Mises/libertarian magic word. With an "Austrian School" infobox. Now I wonder how many other articles in Category: Epistemology have been given this von Mises/Rothbard libertarian slant. You're right, PD. Wikipedia's philosophy coverage is nuts. That's the only word I can think of for it. Or 'total shit', in two words. There are islands of good content, mostly written before 2008. But the rest is awful. |
|
|
|
| EricBarbour |
Thu 8th December 2011, 3:59am
Post
#3
|
|
blah Group: Regulars Posts: 5,919 Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am Member No.: 5,066 WP user page - talk check - contribs |
The problem here will be trying to explain WP's poor philosophy coverage to attention-span-limited
ordinary members of the public. I'm leaning toward beginning on the basis of the absurdly small article space it occupies-- 0.18% total, out of all of Wikipedia's subject matter. Britannica is 0.8%, by comparison. WP's general slant towards crackpot libertarian/Rand beliefs is clearly a problem, but very difficult to explain concisely. Again, Susan Jacoby did a good job in the Truth In Numbers movie, yet still barely scratched the surface. |
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 19th 5 13, 4:51pm |