----- Original Message ----- From: "David Gerard" <dger...@gmail.com> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 12:38 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
> On 27 September 2010 15:17, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> A few posts back Peter linked to several philosophy-trained editors >> who had left Wikipedia, representing them as examples of the problems >> he has identified. >> I think it's worth reposting here what one of those editors gave as >> his reasons for leaving: >> So what can we learn from these clearly stated objections, and how do >> they apply to the general problem of articles in the humanities? > > > This appears to be the objections of someone who thinks an > encyclopedia is a journal in the field, or should work like one. As > WJohnson has pointed out, Wikipedia is not a venue for academic > self-promotion either. > > You can hardly move on Wikipedia without tripping over experts in > whatever topic you're editing. Why are there any experts on Wikipedia? > > > - d. I have already pointed out (and you agreed) that Wikipedia requires a different style and approach from the one of, say, the SEP. > Wikipedia is not a venue for academic > self-promotion either. It is supposed to be a comprehensive and reliable reference source. > You can hardly move on Wikipedia without tripping over experts in > whatever topic you're editing. There are only a handful of experts on philosophy in Wikipedia, and they are pretty demoralized. When are you going to clean up this mess, David? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age You said you were going to, some time. Or this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence If there are so many experts, why are these articles in such a complete mess? We are not talking about a 'journal in the field'. We are talking about a basic introductory article to a subject which in any comprehensive reference work would be treated with care and respect. Why is there no proper article on Theology? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology . And why is this one - a basic subject - such a mess http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology ? Without experts to tell you there is a problem, you aren't going to realise there is one, I suppose. With every kind wish. Peter _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
