----- Original Message ----- From: "David Gerard" <dger...@gmail.com> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 9:40 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
> That [...] doesn't answer the question I asked: > *what* about the approach in this paper wouldn't work for philosophy, > in your opinion? Please be specific. > > http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1000941 On the assumption that there is negative answer to Step 1 - namely, there is a serious problem with the content and quality of philosophy articles in Wikipedia (I think you agree that is not in doubt), then the answer is clearly that none of these approaches have worked so far for philosophy, either singly or collectively. Does that answer your question? The answer seemed so obvious that I didn't give it. I suppose you will reply that it is in some way the fault of the philosophers. This, as I poetically suggested, would be like blaming the plants that didn't like acid soil, for not growing in my garden. I repeat: it is unfair to blame the plants. Find out the problem with the garden or its environment or its soil or whatever, and try to fix that if possible. I found the article here quite helpful http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walled_garden Wtih every kind wish, Peter _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
