[WikiEN-l] New additions to the guidelines/policies (was:Larry's text on the "Knowledge" article)

Fri Apr 18 15:34:59 UTC 2003

Ok then, now that jimmy agrees with this points (and
supposedly everyone), I will present what refinements
I'm adding to the policies and guidelines:

I am writing here from memory, so correct me if i'm
wrong..

> 1. Giving the western philosophical views of
> "Knowledge" should be paired by eastern ones (In the
> same amount of detail) -- I don't expect this to be
> done soon, as I've said on previous posts, the
> majority of writers origin from western cultures,
> but
> this should change.

Not adding, this seems like political correctness,
this is the type of rules I don't like, you cannot
force americans to write enthusiastically about
African cultures (or eastern philosophy for this
example).

> 2. Creating a wiki that tries to form a consensus
> regarding the matter itself (by addressing the
> matter
> directly, not the different views and historical
> timeline) is an impossible task.

Not really explained well in the rules, (AFAIK), I
will add this.

> 3. Encyclopedic articles should not try define the
> matter (e.g. "What is knowledge?") unless it is
> trivial (Like in Wikipedia's Knowledge article, as
> opposed to Brittanica)

I have yet to see this in the guidelines (maybe in a
subtle way).

> 4. Encyclopedic article should cite and base the
> ideas
> and concepts presented, preferably by reference to
> known experts in the field (In this case
> World-recognized philosophers)

Already written in the guidelines.

> 5. One person's thought process may lead into
> completely different "philosophical" discussion. So
> stating that the "following discussion" presented is
> the only "correct" one is a biased treatment of the
> subject.

Hmm.. I don't know about this.. seems like a regular
POV issue.

> 
> 6. In this specific case (as an example), I argued
> that 
> the latter 80% of the article doesn't add a
> significant  insight on the matter, in proportion to
> the amount of text given. (Quantity vs. Quality)

This is Quantity vs. Quality, I believe it's written.

> 
> 7. I propose another definition of what Wikipedia is
> NOT: Wikipedia is NOT a collaborative project of
> writing scientific papers or text-books, or any
> debatable cognitive material for that matter.

Not written in the "What wikipedia is NOT"  article,
though it mentions "Original Research", I will broad
that definition.

If you have suggestions/objections please comment.

Rotem

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com