On 3 October 2010 16:14, Peter Damian <[email protected]> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 3:53 PM > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005? >> It was never intended however to be a collaboration amongst experts, but >> rather an encyclopedia built *by* the masses, for the masses. That was >> the >> intent. In this, it has succeeded, for better or worse. > > But in certain areas it has not succeeded at all - philosophy in particular, > and to a certain extent the humanities. The question is why is that so. A > very plausible explanation is the one that Sarah has so cogently explained.
However it fundamentally fails to explain why other areas of the humanities such as those covered by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Maritime_warfare_task_force/Operation_Majestic_Titan seem to do okey. > 1. Is there a quality problem in certain areas. Yes or no? > > 2. If there is a problem, are there any underlying or systematic reasons? > > 3. If there are any underlying or systematic reasons, can they easily be > addressed? > And if you think any of the above have answers you will discover the problem that wikipedia has with the likes of philosophy. -- geni _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
