Re: [Foundation-l] Organization on Wikipedia that dealswithcontentissues.
From: Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.com It seems that Humanities are overall a problematic area for Wikipedia, because less involved in consensus building, and much focused in the stratification of different interpretations. No quite untrue. My background is analytic philosophy and I have worked on many articles and have made friends with those working in the 'European' tradition of philosophy. We settled our differences (indeed ignored our differences from the beginning) and worked to defend philosophy articles from the endless vandalism. There was never any disagreement. But most of them have given up by now. From: Excirial wp.excir...@gmail.com The problem you mention is actually the stagnation of edits. You snipped the bit where I talked about the benchmark article which is gradually eroded into chaos. Unless the articles are well looked after by those that care and understand, they deteriorate and rot away. Do you propose any solutions for this? I'm interesting in solutions. From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net We need to set up a regular mechanism which analyzes and searches for errors. Well I'm working through articles and writing them up and reporting them (I'm not correcting them, obviously). But there are many thousands of errors, and I am one person :( ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Organization on Wikipedia that dealswithcontentissues.
I believe it was in history (or perhaps textual criticism) where the distinction between primary and secondary sources was first made. The idea of NPOV is fundamental to the humanities. I'm not really a humanist, but I have a little background both in Humanities and STM (if you consider mathematics as STM) and in the interview with Eco I tried to focus on the differences between these two domains and their approach to collaboration. I'm not saying that Humanities do not struggle for an objectivity/consensus, but I just wanted to emphasize the difference between STM studies, in which I do think it is easier to understand and comprehend the procedures, ideas and mechanisms of Wikipedia (for many reasons). From what I've experienced, it is generally more difficult to explain these things to humanities scholars that stm scholars. And I was wondering if Wikipedia, limiting the article to one, single and neutral version, is enough to some Humanities scholars, who maybe would prefer the possibility of many articles/monographies, one for interpretation. Aubrey ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
