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)

[Milton Roe]

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.

Wow, straw man much, yourself. There is a role for experts in any large project. But it's not the whole role, and not even the major one. In fact, you insist that everything be done by "experts," you let yourself in for a world of pain.

There actually wasn't a fire at Wales Elementary school, because it was never built. Regulations written by experts made it so expensive that all the kids were shuffled off to camps with tents, where they got exposure and dysentery, following which they were sent home for home schooling, following which they didn't get educated at all. The Wales school meanwhile, where every nail and piece of drywall is put in by a licenced architect and checked for code compliance every day by a civil engineer, procedes slowly. Ask again in 2028, the expected date for finishing the main framing. In the old battle for quality vs quantity, our new school, which we tall the Taj, wins hands down. Or will, just as soon as it's ready.

We're glad you visted our hospital where everything is done by physicians, including empty bedpans. Crap, those docs are terrible at starting IV's, aren't they? Who would have thought? But you can thank their guidance for the fact that you have seatbelt and helmet laws, and your food tastes like cardboard because cholesterol has been outlawed. Wow, who would have thought that medicine could be a part of just about everything you do? Have a long, long, long, long life. We hope to see you in a nursing home in 100 years, if you haven't shuffled off from boredom first. What, you say some parts of medical decisions require input from your own values, on which you're the only expert? How dare you. Where's your degree?

And the legislators. How much better society runs now that we've required tham ALL to be lawyers, with a lifetime of studying law! Hell, we used to have just ordinary citizens from all professions making the laws, and what a problem that was. You could understand some of them! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

[Peter Damian]

Well there are some subjects it does pretty well, particularly in the 'definite sciences'. It also does well in those subjects which suit themselves to the compilation of lists - e.g. popular music. If I want to find out about some delta blues singer in the 1920's, often hard to source, then Wikipedia is the place.

There are other subjects where it really is abysmally awful, and my own chosen subject is one of those, if not the very worst. Generally speaking, the humanities fare much worse than the mathematical and definite sciences. I wonder why that is. Is it that the geeks invented the internet, and the geeks tend to favour the technical subjects and definite sciences.

I'll look for some examples. Meanwhile, I agree with Milton that it is amazing it can do it at all, in the sense that it is amazing that dogs can walk on their hind legs. On the other hand, dogs do better on all fours.

The list is still there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dbuckner...hylaughingstock

Some of my favourites:

Wikipedia shouldn't be telling people that Scandinavia is an English-speaking country, that Karl Marx was a contemporary commentator on 1950s politics, that Russell deemed Principia Mathematica somewhat of a success. A reversion war has ensued, understandably I think. I would support locking the page, on a version without the crap obviously. I can see no other way to compel editors to respond to correction of obvious errors on the Talk page rather than just republishing the same errors.

The story of Marxism and Revolution goes all the way back to the French Revolution, where many of the fighters who were more left-wing had lost and the Bourgeois took control. Later in the 19th Century there had been sporadic revolutionary activity throughout Europe. Such was the promise of Marxism to the vast majority of working people that it terrified the politicians and company owners. Along with the French Revolution came major escalations in the activities of secret police. In Russia the Tzar began imprisoning leftists. Many similar actions were taken throughout Europe to quote a well known commentator of that time, "A spectre is haunting Europe".

On the matter raised as to whether the online Stanford Philosophy site is better than wiki, I think most of it would be disallowed here as being Original Research or Essay. So in that sense wiki's philosophy is better. It also has a lot more than Stanford.

As a consequence of the collapse of colonialism and imperialism in the twentieth century, philosophy now is classified according to three major geographical regions, Western philosophy, Eastern philosophy, and African philosophy.

Someone will say "But these things are no longer there, doesn't that prove the system works?". I reply, they were removed by people with formal qualifications, who knew this was nonsense.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Jon Awbrey]

It's easy to be impressed with a Wall Of Detail (WOD) in an area that you have studied casually, say, up through the sophomoronic collegiate level. But everyone I've known who looks at an area that he or she has studied in depth comes back impressed that Wikipediots have managed to assemble just about every nøøbish howler, misconception, and urban myth that ever washed up on the shores of any nøøb beach anywhere.

And that includes the math and science articles.

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

[darbyl]

Wow, straw man much, yourself. There is a role for experts in any large project. But it's not the whole role, and not even the major one. In fact, you insist that everything be done by "experts," you let yourself in for a world of pain.

Good god Milton, did you actually read any of what I wrote? At what point did I "insist that everything be done by experts"? What I was getting at is that experts exist for a reason; and a world that replaces expertise with "consensus" (which is what you get if you map Wikipedia to the world at large) would be a scary place.

Can amateurs provide unexpected and useful insights, absolutely. I'm not arguing that they can't. What I'm arguing is that a work that bills itself as an encyclopedia and that aspires to be the "sum of all human knowledge" cannot be built by a consensus of amateurs. In the end all that model will result in is the average of all human knowledge.

I think that a preferable model would be Citizendium or the model that Britannica is proposing. Gather what wisdom the crowd has to offer, and filter it through professional copyeditors and reputable subject mater experts. Combine that with proper accountability via a legally liable publisher and you have a work that I'd happily use and contribute to.

[Jon Awbrey]

In the end all that model will result in is the average of all human knowledge.

Strictly speaking, it would be the Lowest Common Per Nom.

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

[Milton Roe]

I think that a preferable model would be Citizendium or the model that Britannica is proposing. Gather what wisdom the crowd has to offer, and filter it through professional copyeditors and reputable subject mater experts. Combine that with proper accountability via a legally liable publisher and you have a work that I'd happily use and contribute to.

Well, I think we're in general agreement, then. But the devil, of course, is in the details.

It's that way also with society, which is why I brought up the matter of seatbelt laws, other safety regulations which make too expensive to create many things that life is even MORE unsafe WITHOUT, and "folly, doctorlike, controlling skill," even in hospitals. I think that last made Shakespeare wish for restful death. And the problem of having every judge be a lawyer dressed in a black robe. Can't some of them be ordinary people dressed in black robes? In fact some are in the US, but this practice is waining. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

There are other subjects where it really is abysmally awful, and my own chosen subject is one of those, if not the very worst.

You'd be amazed how many people feel that way. It's not quite so bad for me, but this is partly due to some effort on my part (he said modestly).

Generally speaking, the humanities fare much worse than the mathematical and definite sciences. I wonder why that is. Is it that the geeks invented the internet, and the geeks tend to favour the technical subjects and definite sciences.

It could also be that people still haven't got the gall to mess with a mathmatical article when they know no math at all.

As a consequence of the collapse of colonialism and imperialism in the twentieth century, philosophy now is classified according to three major geographical regions, Western philosophy, Eastern philosophy, and African philosophy.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) This my favorite of your quotes, but I thought this was pretty much standard politically-correct lore now, at ye liberal Ivy League university? Now that colonialism and imperialism have collapsed, you know....

[Peter Damian]

The problem is not so much the average person (and I am a great believe in the wisdom of crowds, so long as the crowd contains a few average people).

The problem is that few average people are going to contribute to (say) an article on philosophy. So the debate gets polarised those known almost nothing of the subject, but who lack the self-awareness required to tell them they know nothing, i.e. cranks, and genuine experts (but generally the sort of expert who gets a kick out of belittling well-meaning but ignorant cranks).

You can find countless examples of this in the usenet forum sci.logic. For example here

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/b...8a96bfd6b8a8af#

Where someone called 'elsiemelsie' claims the Zermelo-Frankel set theory is 'inconsistent'. I don't know who elsiemelsie is, but the nature of his claim rather suggests he doesn't know what he (or she, probably he) is talking about.

Immediately the guy called 'George' comes back. I know George quite well (as a contributor). George in fact does know his stuff, but he is extremely belligerent. Note the excessive use of capitals and strident tone. I haven't looked further down the thread but it is usually not long before he descends to obscene language and poisonous abuse (this is why George would not be allowed on Wikipedia). The style of his contributions are indistinguishable from the cranks, indeed, far worse. But he does in fact know his stuff. He gets a kick out of insulting people.

There was another guy called Torkel Franzen, a distinguished writer on Godel who used to frequent that space also. His style was much more subtle than George, and Torkel was very clever at drawing cranks in then hitting them with something in a way that would cause the informed onlookers to laugh silently at the poor victim. Sadly Torkel died last year, the usenet world is a lot poorer without him. Although sometimes I felt his subtle style was almost crueller than George.

So there you have it. Cranks whose main incentive is to prove their idiosyncratic views. Experts who are motivated by cruelty and intellectual sadism, and the deeply felt need to belittle and make fools of those in whom intelligence and education are lacking.

[edit] Oh joy, they still haven't taken his site down at Lutheran university. Here is Torkel's excellent guide to trolling. I have taken a copy for posterity.

http://www.sm.luth.se/~torkel/eget/net.html

[...] your aim as a major nuisance is to establish intellectual contact with your[...] opponent, opening his eyes to certain facts or difficulties. If your opponent is a very reasonable person, he will quickly see the point of your queries or criticisms and adjust his thinking to the extent necessary to take them into account. Fortunately, such reasonable people are rarely encountered in news. Instead your opponent, even if by no means a loon or sectarian, will either fight tooth and nail to avoid having to admit to any mistake or defect in his reasoning, or else, his idea of a good time being as warped as yours, happily continue arguing just for the sake of argument.

Note the bit in bold, which kind of bears out the point I was making above.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Peter Damian]

This my favorite of your quotes, but I thought this was pretty much standard politically-correct lore now, at ye liberal Ivy League university? Now that colonialism and imperialism have collapsed, you know....

You laugh, but this just appeared on Talk:Philosophy today:

We have one introductory statement from the UK one there at the moment, one US suggested by above and ideally we should add in from from Asia. --Snowded (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] While I was looking through the WP:NPOV, which is actually quite good, and dates back to the Sanger days, I found this little gem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...99&oldid=315183

Though it doesn't really help me in arguing with someone who wants to balance citations between US, England, France, Japan, China, Amazon rainforest &c on an equal basis. At that point, I simply have to give up, admit I was insane to try at all.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Peter Damian]

Is getting stranger. One particularly belligerent editor wants to delete the introduction altogether and replace it with a selection of different citations on the nature of philosophy. I reply here

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

that in no other of the flagship articles like history, politics &c is this approach used. His argument, which is actually more sensible, is essentially that any synthesis or balance between sources is original research, and that Wikipedia cannot possibly do better than a published, peer-reviewed source. I'm beginning to see where he is coming from. Quite.

[edit] You are going to ask, why have I come back to this house of horror when I am mad too, and when I said I wouldn't. The answer is, it's like those horror movies or dreams where the actor sees the door, and you think 'no, don't open the door, don't open it'. You know what is inside is going to invovle something very scary, or probably something much worse like axe-murderers, disembowellment, torture, supernatural creepy things. But, no, the guy/woman goes inside. Why are human beings so foolish?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Jon Awbrey]

Peter,

This is your reminder.

Let us know if you need another one.

Obligingly yours,

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

[Peter Damian]

Peter,

This is your reminder.

Let us know if you need another one.

Obligingly yours,

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

Thank you Jon perhaps I should have listened to you all along.

What I actually need is one of those places like they have down the road from us. It's called the Priory and they take these rock-star people who have some addiction usually to booze or white powder and for a vast sum of money they wean them off the addiction in a few weeks.

For a smaller sum of money, preferably for free, could someone start a Wikipedia detox?

I think you have to start these courses by admitting you really want to stop, and that it is bad for your life, and that you will be a better person without the pills/booze/powder/Featured article or whatever.

I suppose I still have this problem that I hold a tiny ray of optimism that progress can be made in some way. I can see that I am wasting an afternoon of the sunniest day in England arguing with someone who really hasn't the faintest idea about the subject he is trying to write an article about. Why?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Jon Awbrey]

You are going to ask, why have I come back to this house of horror when I am mad too, and when I said I wouldn't. The answer is, it's like those horror movies or dreams where the actor sees the door, and you think 'no, don't open the door, don't open it'. You know what is inside is going to invovle something very scary, or probably something much worse like axe-murderers, disembowellment, torture, supernatural creepy things. But, no, the guy/woman goes inside. Why are human beings so foolish?

I know — let's split up …

Screek ! Screeek !! Screeeek !!!

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

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:

[thekohser]

I have the perfect solution for you, Peter. Jimmy Wales is a noted expert on matters Philosophy -- let's just nominate him to write the final article then permanently lock it!

[Moulton]

Philosophy According to Phistophicles

[Peter Damian]

Update: some information on a fellow editor of the Philosophy article here.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=106999

[Peter Damian]

Now very much losing it here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=219268311

[wikiwhistle]

Now very much losing it here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=219268311

I somehow didn't realise they unblocked you, I'm glad to see it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Don't you intend to stick around there? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[thekohser]

Now very much losing it here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=219268311

Look, Petey D., the sooner you realize that one of the main purposes of Wikipedia is to be a forum for youngsters to just yank the intellectual chains of old-school intellectuals, the better you'll be able to handle these frameworks they're setting down before you.

I'm quite serious. After reading your diff, I'm certain there's at least several undergraduates forwarding it around, saying, "Look, we've totally got him now. He's going nuts!"

Greg

[Jon Awbrey]

Now very much losing it here:

Talk:Philosophy

Look, Petey D., the sooner you realize that one of the main purposes of Wikipedia is to be a forum for youngsters to just yank the intellectual chains of old-school intellectuals, the better you'll be able to handle these frameworks they're setting down before you.

I'm quite serious. After reading your diff, I'm certain there's at least several undergraduates forwarding it around, saying, "Look, we've totally got him now. He's going nuts!"

Greg

Greg has nailed it. When I was a kid all we had was spitballs and paper airplanes. Now they have Wikipedia. But the game is the same. People who get tossed out of class the second day into an undergrub course now have a place to go after drops-&-adds to take out their frustrations with impunity. I suppose it keeps them out of the gun shops. For a little while.

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

[Peter Damian]

Now very much losing it here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=219268311

Look, Petey D., the sooner you realize that one of the main purposes of Wikipedia is to be a forum for youngsters to just yank the intellectual chains of old-school intellectuals, the better you'll be able to handle these frameworks they're setting down before you.

I'm quite serious. After reading your diff, I'm certain there's at least several undergraduates forwarding it around, saying, "Look, we've totally got him now. He's going nuts!"

Greg

Except the main irritant is not an undergraduate - he is one of those change management gurus who for some reason has an interest in philosophy. He has even written an article about himself on WP here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Snowden

Now very much losing it here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=219268311

I somehow didn't realise they unblocked you, I'm glad to see it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Don't you intend to stick around there? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I've been unblocked for some time. Completely rewrote and finished 'Medieval Philosophy' and contributed a few more fresh articles. I stupidly ignored the unwritten rule that you don't touch the 'Philosophy' article itself, which is a well-known crank magnet. The article used to be cited amongst academic philosophers as a reason not to take Wikipedia seriously.