Philosophy: remind me not to be so stupid, Who needs experts Options

[Peter Damian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Philosophy

I keep coming back to this page, mainly because it gets 5,000 hits a day (that's nearly 2m people a year rely on it as a source of knowledge about an academic subject. I am taking on 4 people only 1 of whom has any kind of formal qualification that I can see. Someone claims

Kant, in particular, claimed that there were philosophical questions that could only be answered by going beyond reason.

I point out that the guy, by his own admission, has never read any Kant. And someone else claims

Whether someone has read Kant is not relevant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Philosop...uote_of_the_day

Someone please tell me, and keep reminding me, that anyone who gets involved with this project is fundamentally insane. thank you.


(What they are objecting to is a version of the introduction which was written by myself and a professional philosopher and which was good enough to be used by Trinity College Dublin in their prospectus. Let's just step back and see ....)

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Moulton]

The Noumenal vs the Phenomenal

Kant, in particular, claimed that there were philosophical questions that could only be answered by going beyond reason.

I have no idea what Kant claimed, since I frankly never read the guy's work.

But I do agree with the quoted sentiment, nonetheless, modulo the definition of reason.

There are some philosophical questions that can only be answered by doing original research. And while it's eminently reasonable to do original research, I dunno if the discovery learning process that comprises the bulk of a research agenda is itself an instance of reason.

In Philosophy, there is a distinction between the Noumenal — that which can be captured by pure thought — and the Phenomenal — that which can be captured by the senses.

When doing original research, much new information is captured by the senses.

[Peter Damian]

The Noumenal vs the Phenomenal

Kant, in particular, claimed that there were philosophical questions that could only be answered by going beyond reason.

I have no idea what Kant claimed, since I frankly never read the guy's work.

I for that reason you are not going to get involved in an edit war over the interpretation of Kant in an article that gets top rank on Google, and which 2m people consult every year for reliable information about Kant. I hope.

[Moulton]

Well, not for that reason.

I already said that even if I were unblocked, I would not edit mainspace articles unless and until WP established a more collegial and congenial operating environment, conducive to the enterprise of crafting a quality encyclopedia that rose to normative standards of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media.

[Somey]

...unless and until WP established a more collegial and congenial operating environment, conducive to the enterprise of crafting a quality encyclopedia that rose to normative standards of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media.

You could have just said "ever"...

[Somey]

Someone please tell me, and keep reminding me, that anyone who gets involved with this project is fundamentally insane. thank you.

Well, as Bertrand Russell himself might have said, "The point of Wikipedia is to start with something so simple as to seem not worth doing, and to end with something so ludicrously hidebound, bureaucratic, and conflict-ridden that no one will contribute to it."

[Moulton]

...unless and until WP established a more collegial and congenial operating environment, conducive to the enterprise of crafting a quality encyclopedia that rose to normative standards of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media.

You could have just said "ever"...

What's the point of a chat room if you can't have some annoying fun with the English language?

It must have been seven or eight years ago that Lorelei Kring collected some of her favorite "Moultonisms" of that epoch and compiled them into the BarryMatic Response Generator.

[wikiwhistle]

It must have been seven or eight years ago that Lorelei Kring collected some of her favorite "Moultonisms" of that epoch and compiled them into the BarryMatic Response Generator.

Lol that's excellent!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Philosophy

I keep coming back to this page, mainly because it gets 5,000 hits a day (that's nearly 2m people a year rely on it as a source of knowledge about an academic subject. I am taking on 4 people only 1 of whom has any kind of formal qualification that I can see. Someone claims

Kant, in particular, claimed that there were philosophical questions that could only be answered by going beyond reason.

I point out that the guy, by his own admission, has never read any Kant. And someone else claims

Whether someone has read Kant is not relevant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Philosop...uote_of_the_day

Someone please tell me, and keep reminding me, that anyone who gets involved with this project is fundamentally insane. thank you.

Maybe we are lol. I'm not an expert at philosophy and haven't read a bit of Kant for about 13 years. But I think that's very different to what Kant believed. Anyway, the way to argue with them is usually a sort of 'argument from authority.' Arguing from your own authority doesn't work with them- you have to put dozens of references in which say what you're saying, to make your edit stick.

This is what you'd need to do on an article you don't 'own' and other people act like they own. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Even then sources might possibly be found to support both ideas of what Kant believed.

If it's a rarely viewed article you can write what you think is correct a lot more easily. Remembering of course to back up that Original Research with what look like reliable sources (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)


This post has been edited by wikiwhistle:

[snowded]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Philosophy

I keep coming back to this page, mainly because it gets 5,000 hits a day (that's nearly 2m people a year rely on it as a source of knowledge about an academic subject. I am taking on 4 people only 1 of whom has any kind of formal qualification that I can see. Someone claims

Kant, in particular, claimed that there were philosophical questions that could only be answered by going beyond reason.

I point out that the guy, by his own admission, has never read any Kant. And someone else claims

Whether someone has read Kant is not relevant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Philosop...uote_of_the_day

Someone please tell me, and keep reminding me, that anyone who gets involved with this project is fundamentally insane. thank you.


(What they are objecting to is a version of the introduction which was written by myself and a professional philosopher and which was good enough to be used by Trinity College Dublin in their prospectus. Let's just step back and see ....)

Peter, I originated the quote and your are using it completely out of context. I suggest people read the page. I was defending the right of another editor to have an opinion about a generic statement. You cannot limit the editors to professional philosophers. Also in the context of your criticism of them (which I gather is long running) their lack of reading Kant had no relevance whatsoever. I can understand the frustration but in this case it is misguided.

[Peter Damian]

Also in the context of your criticism of them (which I gather is long running) their lack of reading Kant had no relevance whatsoever. I can understand the frustration but in this case it is misguided.

It had every relevance. The editor in question was trying to defend an idiosyncratic position that he wishes to incorporate into the article, by quoting Kant as an authority. But his understanding of Kant is a misreading. Indeed, not even a misreading, for he confesses not to having read Kant. You then say that whether or not he has read Kant is irrelevant.

And it's not just Kant.

Norwood wrote: "The later dialogs seem (to me) to go all mystical." Say what? Like the Parmenides and the Statesman? Will people on this page please stop pontificating about books that they clearly have not read? 271828182 21:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome, Snowded.

[edit] Should only professional philosophers edit that page? I don't think so. But there are certain people who shouldn't edit it. The nature of the subject (everyone has views on philosophy) means the page is a crank magnet. These people are extremely difficult to deal with, and tend to drive away professionals, who have better things to do with their time, as well as getting paid for it.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Saltimbanco]

Someone please tell me, and keep reminding me, that anyone who gets involved with this project is fundamentally insane. thank you.

Just keep repeating to yourself, "Wikipedia: the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," again and again until it starts sounding to you like, "Wikipedia: the encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit," and until, on the word "anyone," you start having visions of some of the more regrettable acquaintances you've made in your life, like the kid in elementary school who threw rocks at kittens; the door-to-door evangelist who insisted on making clear to you, with a knowing glance, that "unclean" in the bible refers to "women's monthly issues;" the fat lady at Wal-Mart who was beating her kid; the car salesman who, by way of demonstrating his "honesty," declared that the three things that mattered to him were, "God, my family, and my business, in that order;" the guy on that "show us your video" television program who used his roommate's toothbrush to clean the toilet; former US Senator Trent Lott; the stupid loud frat boy in your first intro to anthropology class who came in fifteen minutes late -- missing the long and pained explanation from the professor about how anthropology strove not to make judgments, but only to establish facts and to hypothesize causal links -- only to raise his hand at the first opportunity, self-importantly to note that evolution is not an undisputed fact; the co-worker whose main concern regarding the women in your office was deciding whether or not they liked it in the ass; former televangelist Ted Haggard; Karl Rove; Ted Kennedy; Linda Mack; the fourteen year old who thought it was his place to tell you what life is like; the guy in your freshman class who would insist, "Mark mah wurds: tha Sath's gunna ri-ise agin';" your dippy ex-girlfriend who thought dolphins were more important than people; a few of your other ex-girlfriends; everyone who ever stuck a Ron Paul sticker in a publicly viewable place; Jimbo Wales; the white lady in South Africa whose door you knocked on by accident and who decided based on no more than the color of your skin that it was appropriate to chat with you about how the blacks had ruined everything and white people needed to stick together; David Gerard; Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly; people who listen to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly for anything other than prurient interest; etc.

This post has been edited by Saltimbanco:

[darbyl]

Someone please tell me, and keep reminding me, that anyone who gets involved with this project is fundamentally insane. thank you.

Just keep repeating to yourself, "Wikipedia: the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," again and again until it starts sounding to you like, "Wikipedia: the encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit," and until, on the word "anyone," you start having visions of some of the more regrettable acquaintances you've made in your life...

list o'shame snipped

Wow Salty, tell us how you really feel (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

I utterly agree though. Apparently those who value the "wisdom of the crowds" have never actually been in a crowd.

This post has been edited by darbyl:

[JohnA]

...unless and until WP established a more collegial and congenial operating environment, conducive to the enterprise of crafting a quality encyclopedia that rose to normative standards of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media.

You could have just said "ever"...

What's the point of a chat room if you can't have some annoying fun with the English language?

It must have been seven or eight years ago that Lorelei Kring collected some of her favorite "Moultonisms" of that epoch and compiled them into the BarryMatic Response Generator.

"I think you're a nutcase"

Barry speaks:

"Perfect! Now you don't need me any more. You have a functional computer model of me to use instead. This is an excellent solution to both our problems."

Damn this thing is good! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Milton Roe]

Someone please tell me, and keep reminding me, that anyone who gets involved with this project is fundamentally insane. thank you.

Just keep repeating to yourself, "Wikipedia: the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," again and again until it starts sounding to you like, "Wikipedia: the encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit," and until, on the word "anyone," you start having visions of some of the more regrettable acquaintances you've made in your life...

list o'shame snipped

Wow Salty, tell us how you really feel (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

I utterly agree though. Apparently those who value the "wisdom of the crowds" have never actually been in a crowd.

And yet. Only a few of the people listed are complete drones. Most of them support themselves by doing something useful in an economy. The model for anything as complicated as an encyclopedia of all human knowledge SHOULD be the (WHOLE) economy. Not some doofus model of a bunch of editors at some stuffy encyclopedia company, soliciting articles from an even more stuffy group of academics at universities. It's just a bigger job than that. And nobody figured that out until Wikipedia succeeded to the extent that it has. Nor did Sanger (and certainly not Wales) figure it out beforehand. But it turns out to be true-- a fact found by accident, like vulcanization of rubber.

Okay. As Asimov says, the most powerful words of discovery in science are not "Eureka!! Eureka!!" but "Huh, that's funny..."

Take a look at WP. A good look. Weird. The amazing thing is not how bad it is. We all knew how bad it could be, and why. The amazing thing is how good it is. So open your eyes and say "Huh, that's funny." And view it as Xerox PARC fumbling the mouse and WYSIWYG. You don't laugh at Xerox when you see they have no idea what to do with what they have. You steal from them. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

[Jon Awbrey]

And yet. Only a few of the people listed are complete drones. Most of them support themselves by doing something useful in an economy. The model for anything as complicated as an encyclopedia of all human knowledge SHOULD be the (WHOLE) economy. Not some doofus model of a bunch of editors at some stuffy encyclopedia company, soliciting articles from an even more stuffy group of academics at universities. It's just a bigger job than that. And nobody figured that out until Wikipedia succeeded to the extent that it has. Nor did Sanger (and certainly not Wales) figure it out beforehand. But it turns out to be true — a fact found by accident, like vulcanization of rubber.

Okay. As Asimov says, the most powerful words of discovery in science are not "Eureka!! Eureka!!" but "Huh, that's funny …"

Take a look at WP. A good look. Weird. The amazing thing is not how bad it is. We all knew how bad it could be, and why. The amazing thing is how good it is. So open your eyes and say "Huh, that's funny." And view it as Xerox PARC fumbling the mouse and WYSIWYG. You don't laugh at Xerox when you see they have no idea what to do with what they have. You steal from them. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Who woulda thunk it? That Miltown Row would turn out to be such a Kloset Koolada Kniper?

And another one bites the dust …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:

[Peter Damian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=217526917

[darbyl]

Someone please tell me, and keep reminding me, that anyone who gets involved with this project is fundamentally insane. thank you.

Just keep repeating to yourself, "Wikipedia: the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," again and again until it starts sounding to you like, "Wikipedia: the encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit," and until, on the word "anyone," you start having visions of some of the more regrettable acquaintances you've made in your life...

list o'shame snipped

Wow Salty, tell us how you really feel (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

I utterly agree though. Apparently those who value the "wisdom of the crowds" have never actually been in a crowd.

And yet. Only a few of the people listed are complete drones. Most of them support themselves by doing something useful in an economy. The model for anything as complicated as an encyclopedia of all human knowledge SHOULD be the (WHOLE) economy. Not some doofus model of a bunch of editors at some stuffy encyclopedia company, soliciting articles from an even more stuffy group of academics at universities. It's just a bigger job than that. And nobody figured that out until Wikipedia succeeded to the extent that it has. Nor did Sanger (and certainly not Wales) figure it out beforehand. But it turns out to be true-- a fact found by accident, like vulcanization of rubber.

Okay. As Asimov says, the most powerful words of discovery in science are not "Eureka!! Eureka!!" but "Huh, that's funny..."

Take a look at WP. A good look. Weird. The amazing thing is not how bad it is. We all knew how bad it could be, and why. The amazing thing is how good it is. So open your eyes and say "Huh, that's funny." And view it as Xerox PARC fumbling the mouse and WYSIWYG. You don't laugh at Xerox when you see they have no idea what to do with what they have. You steal from them. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

The problem with being the "sum of all human knowledge" is, to quote Theodore Sturgeon, "90 percent of everything is crap." Wikipedia is the product of a mob, and I think that history has adequately proven that mobs don't produce a quality product. The fact that this mob is composed of "editors" on the intartubes doesn't make it any different than a bunch of yokels with torches and pitchforks. One day, and I think that day is coming soon, the mob will move on to the next diversion; and Wikipedia will be just a footnote in the history books (and those history books will be written by professionals).

[Milton Roe]

The problem with being the "sum of all human knowledge" is, to quote Theodore Sturgeon, "90 percent of everything is crap." Wikipedia is the product of a mob, and I think that history has adequately proven that mobs don't produce a quality product. The fact that this mob is composed of "editors" on the intartubes doesn't make it any different than a bunch of yokels with torches and pitchforks. One day, and I think that day is coming soon, the mob will move on to the next diversion; and Wikipedia will be just a footnote in the history books (and those history books will be written by professionals).

Well, I guess you're not exactly a populist. Because the economy that supports you, the city you live in, and the democratic political system that runs your country, are all products of this very same bunch of yokels with torches and pitchforks. One guesses that you're arguing that we should remove all power from them and turn it all over to the aristoi, eh? Not the unwashed masses, but people of proper culture and breeding, yea the very intelligentsia, who will make wise choices for all? Poor proletariat-- for the time being, they don't really have the wherewithal to make good decisions, and must be treated like children, until they can. It's the educated man's burden.... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

[darbyl]

The problem with being the "sum of all human knowledge" is, to quote Theodore Sturgeon, "90 percent of everything is crap." Wikipedia is the product of a mob, and I think that history has adequately proven that mobs don't produce a quality product. The fact that this mob is composed of "editors" on the intartubes doesn't make it any different than a bunch of yokels with torches and pitchforks. One day, and I think that day is coming soon, the mob will move on to the next diversion; and Wikipedia will be just a footnote in the history books (and those history books will be written by professionals).

Well, I guess you're not exactly a populist. Because the economy that supports you, the city you live in, and the democratic political system that runs your country, are all products of this very same bunch of yokels with torches and pitchforks. One guesses that you're arguing that we should remove all power from them and turn it all over to the aristoi, eh? Not the unwashed masses, but people of proper culture and breeding, yea the very intelligentsia, who will make wise choices for all? Poor proletariat-- for the time being, they don't really have the wherewithal to make good decisions, and must be treated like children, until they can. It's the educated man's burden.... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/getlost.gif)

Wow, straw-man much. We're talking about Wikipedia, not the whole of fracking society. Let me ask you; do you want to live in a world where everything is done the Wiki-way?

Let's imagine a country, we'll call it WikiLand.

In Wikiland, instead of having a road system laid out by professional city planners for the common benefit of all, we have roads that are laid out by the "consensus" (with all the baggage that Wikipedia brings to that term) of whoever happens to amble by. Wow, my 3 hour commute to my office 5 miles away sucks, but User:GamerzRock decided that all roads need to go by the GameStop 50 miles away.

In Wikiland, buildings aren't designed by architects and built by licensed contractors; they're designed by the consensus of the people and built by the volunteer efforts of anyone who ambles along. It really is a tragedy about all those school kids who died in the fire at Jimbo Wales Elementary last week; but User:IReallyAmAnEngineerHonest convinced everyone that fire sprinklers weren't really needed.

In Wikiland, instead of a duly elected legislative body crafting laws that are enforced by an executive branch and interpreted by a judicial body who have spent their lives learning the law, we have "policies" created by the "consensus" of the masses (but really they're WP:OWNED by whoever expends the most effort controlling them). Those "policies" are enforced by "admins" who are, in almost all cases the very same people who drafted the "policies" in the first place. When you are sanctioned by the "admins" (said sanction of course being entirely at their discretion) you're sole recourse is an "Arbitration Committee." Too bad that the "Arbitration Committee" is composed of the same "admins" who drafted the "policy" in the first place, and who do all the enforcing. Add in the fact that "policy" can change at any given moment, and you see that following the rules in Wikiland can be very exciting. Just the other day I went to the "Arbitration Committee" to argue that I wasn't violating "policy" when the "admin" User:IHateSpeeders cited me for driving at 25 MPH the week before. Imagine my chagrin when IHateSpeeders (she's also on the ArbCom, but I'm sure she'll be impartial) pointed out that User:ThinCelibate had edited the speed limit "policy" 3 days before to make the new speed limit 20 MPH. Really, I should have checked first.

In Wikiland, our health care isn't provided by medical experts; It's determined by the "consensus" of people interested in the case. I would tell you the story of my uncle, who went into the hospital with a broken leg and got a scalpel in the heart instead, instead I'll just link to the story.

Don't know about you, but I'd be on the first boat out of Wikiland.

And, for the record; I am very much a populist. But I'm also realistic enough to realize that we have experts in things for a reason. You want to let every chump with an internet connection contribute to the "sum of all human knowledge"? Fine, let them, but don't call it an "encyclopedia." Call it Jimbo's Big Bag O' Trivia and be done with it.

[Jon Awbrey]

One subtheme in the Dialogue On Knowledge (DOK) that's been going on for the last umpteen years or so has been this very question about the proper relationship between Democracy and Inquiry. I could put together a reading list if anyone wants to cache up, but needles to say the level of discussion has progressed rather far beyond the kinds of oeuvre-simple-fixations that we currently see in Wikiputia and its Wikiparishes.

Not that Wikipimplists give a rat's assfault what anyone else has thunk.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)