On 2 October 2010 20:53, Peter Damian <[email protected]> wrote: > From: "David Gerard" <[email protected]>
>> Wikipedia does appear to have fallen into its own folk ontology: an >> answer to the question "what is knowledge?" that is simple and obvious >> enough for smart high school students. And I'm not meaning to >> denigrate smart high school students - but they haven't even had four >> years of wrangling with the issue of "how do we know what we know?" at >> undergraduate level. > David could you translate this section here please. Are you saying that the > question of what 'knowledge' that the WMF seeks to bring is a difficult > question? I didn't say or mean anything about the WMF. As I said, it's an evolved folk construction of what knowledge means. And that this is a hard question that actually getting really good at typically requires four years of someone trying to beat it into the dense brains of undergraduates. > Also, be careful not to confuse the content of what is to be > known with the medium through which it is acquired. For example if I > explain x in a very simple way that anyone can understand, and if I explain > x using very technical way, the knowledge x is the same in both cases. It's > just that in one case it has explained in an easier way. We aren't talking > about different knowledge here. No indeed. That's why I say the question is how to get across to idiots that they are, in fact, idiots - without breaking what clearly works fantastically well on Wikipedia. (How to avoid, for instance, falling into a credentialism death spiral.) - d. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
