On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 09:47, Peter Damian <[email protected]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "SlimVirgin" <[email protected]> > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 4:40 PM > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005? > > >>This is absolutely the attitude I've encountered on Wikipedia, where >>everyone thinks that if you know how to ask "what is truth?" you're >>also able to have a go at answering it. But that's the basic error >>right there, and it has driven off several of the specialists who >>might have written some good articles on those issues. And it's not >>only in article space that academic philosophers would be able to help >>improve things. > > That's an answer to question 2 (are there any systematic reasons). But what > about question 3? If there are any underlying or systematic reasons, can > they easily be > addressed? > > Are there any small changes to the philosophy microclimate that would > attract the plants back? > I can think of a very labour-intensive change -- a project to raise awareness of the importance of philosophy, and what constitutes a philosophical issue, and that there are academic sources devoted to dealing with them. But that's a project that would need academic philosophers to create it. And it would be a contentious project at times, because we'd be trying to claim back certain topics from other hands -- from scientists, for example.
How do we attract the philosophers back once they've gone almost entirely? I don't know. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
