[WikiEN-l] Larry's text on the "Knowledge" article

Thu Apr 17 21:50:51 UTC 2003

Well, if you consult Britannica what they do in philosophical articles is
set forth the history of philosophical thought on a subject. Here we try,
usually unsuccessully, to address the issue itself. However, in the absence
of a recognized canon of knowledge on a topic our attempts are unlikely to
satisfy.

Knowledge is doable though.

As to art, right at the beginning of work on the Oxford Dictionary, they hit
that rock. And more or less did it.

Fred

> From: Rotem Dan <rotem_dan at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 14:08:31 -0700 (PDT)
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text on the "Knowledge" article
> 
> OK, ok you guys don't seem to get the point of my
> post. What I meant was that ANY philosophical text, is
> inappropriate for an ENCYCLOPEDIA, because it's
> obviously cannot become consensus, and will always
> remain merely a POV.
> 
> It's like saying that by creating a wiki trying to
> "define" *what* is "art" , you will eventually (and
> ultimately) get to the point of consensus. that
> everyone will agree: "Yes, exactly, that is art".
> Great, all our problems solved, the wiki said Art is
> defined by X, Thought is Y and Knowledge is Z.
> 
> Some things just shouldn't be written into a wiki.
> 
> Rotem.
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
> http://platinum.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l