[peirce-l] Re: current version of wikipedia Peirce entry
Unfortunately, in those cases where Wikipedia has not lived up to hopes, people
still need to keep tabs on it in order to correct egregious errors. This was
the case back when in the entry for "truth," a narrow, concrete-bound, & overly
finitistic consensus theory of truth was attributed to Peirce ("Charles Sanders
Peirce [held] that the truth is whatever is (or will come to be) agreed upon by
some specified group, such as all competent investigators, or the best
scientists of the future." -- nothing about truth as a sign's correspondence to
its object, or about truth as independent of any finite community's opinion, or
truth as such that it *would* be reached inevitably by research adequately
prolonged.). I found out about the Wikipedia entry from elsewhere -- I think
through seeing it quoted on some blog. I traced it back to about.com and thence
to Wikipedia. The misinformation about Peirce had spread and would have kept
spreading, thanks especially to the relative popularity of the "truth" entry. I
mean, if somebody typed "truth" into the Wikipedia search box and clicked on
"go," that article was what they saw. Not a good first impression of Peirce. It
makes that most imaginative of the well grounded intellects sound as if he
believed that truth itself could learn a thing or two from institutional
authority. It was the kind of misinformation to which Peirce seems especially
vulnerable. There are still many, including some philosophers, who attribute to
Peirce some of the "pragmatism" which Peirce rejected along, ultimately, with
the word itself. So, when I saw that Wikipedia entry, I thought, wow, will this
never end? Well, it was easy for me to do something about it, just as easy as
it was for the person to write something wrong about Peirce in the first place.
Such is Wikipedia? That's not the whole story. This is another one of those
profits from Joe Ransdell's peirce-l -- I'd already benefitted from discussion
of Peirce's views on truth, I was able to quickly spread the word about the
claims in Wikipedia about Peirce, and to present exactly what I wrote at the
Wikipedia discussion page about the article (especially as I was concerned lest
I, too, got Peirce wrong!), and gain support & encouragement from eminent
scholars. I should have "gone in" and made the needed change but I balked for
various reasons of diffidence. I'm sorry to say that I've forgotten who it was
who finally went in (Nubiola? Gobel? Zenith?) and made the needed change.
(Currently the section no longer even mentions Peirce!)
Best, Ben Udell
- Original Message -
From: "Irving Anellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum"
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 6:27 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: current version of wikipedia Peirce entry
It seems to me that the quality of the articles in wikipedia varies widely,
since virtually anyone can contribute to the articles and make emendations, and
that the expertise of contributors likewise varies widely. When I examined the
list of contributors to philosophy articles, I noted that a large number, if
not the majority, were students, very often undergraduate students. I recall
that in the discussions regarding the article on Betrand Russell, for example,
there had been a problem of someone continually altering the year of Russell's
birth, as 1870 rather than 1872. I've not checked recently, so I don't know
whether this particular problem has finally been put to rest or not. Moreover,
there is no indication of who may or may not have been responsible, either in
whole or in part, for any particular article in Wikipedia -- not itself
necessarily a confidence builder. It is therefore left to each reader to
attempt to determine, on the basis of his or her own expertise and judgment,
the value, accuracy, and quality of the Wikipedia articles.
On the other hand, although the contributors to the Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy [IEP] are volunteers, these volunteers are also professional
philosophers, most of whom are academics; and their articles are refereed by
one or more specialists chosen by the member of the team of editors of a
specified area, all of whom are themselves professional academic philosophers
expert in their respective specialties, and typically are also noted authors of
articles in refereed print journals. The articles are all substantial and are
required to meet the same standards as would hold for publication in refereed
print journals. Articles are of substantial length, and their authors are
typically given an average of six months to prepare their article.
I'm not suggesting that all the contributions to Wikipedia are of inferior
quality, and I've never looked at the Peirce article on Wikiopedia. Neither am
I impugning the the expertise of anyone in particular; and if I have
accidentally or unintentionally offended anyone on the list, I apologize. I
would, however, suggest a fortiori that we migh
[peirce-l] Re: current version of wikipedia Peirce entry
It seems to me that the quality of the articles in wikipedia varies widely, since virtually anyone can contribute to the articles and make emendations, and that the expertise of contributors likewise varies widely. When I examined the list of contributors to philosophy articles, I noted that a large number, if not the majority, were students, very often undergraduate students. I recall that in the discussions regarding the article on Betrand Russell, for example, there had been a problem of someone continually altering the year of Russell's birth, as 1870 rather than 1872. I've not checked recently, so I don't know whether this particular problem has finally been put to rest or not. Moreover, there is no indication of who may or may not have been responsible, either in whole or in part, for any particular article in Wikipedia -- not itself necessarily a confidence builder. It is therefore left to each reader to attempt to determine, on the basis of his or her own expertise and judgment, the value, accuracy, and quality of the Wikipedia articles. On the other hand, although the contributors to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy [IEP] are volunteers, these volunteers are also professional philosophers, most of whom are academics; and their articles are refereed by one or more specialists chosen by the member of the team of editors of a specified area, all of whom are themselves professional academic philosophers expert in their respective specialties, and typically are also noted authors of articles in refereed print journals. The articles are all substantial and are required to meet the same standards as would hold for publication in refereed print journals. Articles are of substantial length, and their authors are typically given an average of six months to prepare their article. I'm not suggesting that all the contributions to Wikipedia are of inferior quality, and I've never looked at the Peirce article on Wikiopedia. Neither am I impugning the the expertise of anyone in particular; and if I have accidentally or unintentionally offended anyone on the list, I apologize. I would, however, suggest a fortiori that we might be better served by steering away from Wikipedia and towards IEP when searching for a resource of uniform and academically sound quality. (P.S.: If I am permitted to say so, I have begun work for an article for IEP on Peirce's logic.) Irving H. Anellis [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.peircepublishing.com -- ___ Search for businesses by name, location, or phone number. -Lycos Yellow Pages http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10 --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Graphics in posts
Joe, I'm unsure what the _intended_ function of the "DIV" tag is supposed to be, other than "dividing" the document. Basically, I think of it as being like the paragraph tag "P" without the extra linespace which the "P" tag adds after a paragraph. When one converts an html email to plaintext, the "P"s extra linespace is lost, and paragraphs which had looked separate end up looking like one paragraph. Text formatted with "DIV" tags tends to behave better when undergoing changes. Also, "DIV" is block-level element like "P" and this means certain things when you add STYLE formattting to the tag. The designed behavior of the "P" tag was not a bad idea, and was in line with the basic ideas involved in html -- the "P" tag is in order to tell the user's program what ARE the paragraphs of TEXT. But programs were designed which somtimes mess the appearance up when the text mode is changed (changed by converting from html to plaintext, or in making a reply, or in copying and pasting into plaintext, etc.). The "BR" tag corresponds to the MS Word line break which you get by pressing SHIFT ENTER. My experience is that these BR's sometimes get lost in conversion. I've seen it especially in responses to my emails in past years. So I developed a habit of avoiding them unless I knew that I wouldn't really mind if they got omitted at some point. If you see text in a response in which, in the course of every one or two lines, two words run together, then it may well be because the program didn't save the BR tags in converting the text from one mode to another. Some of these email programs do all kinds of wierd things, like add I should take the opportunity to note that the "20"s & equality signs which the Lyris server adds to the html source are seen only at the Lyris archives, and not in the posts actually distributed (at least not in the ones which I receive). Best, Ben What is the functional difference between using the "DIV" and the "BR" tag, Ben? You say that it makes some sort of difference in email but I don't understand what you mean. Joe - Original Message - From: "Benjamin Udell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 3:41 PM Subject: [peirce-l] Graphics in posts List, I've been considering Richard Hake's complaints about html, graphics, etc., in messages. Believe it or not, I have some sympathy for his views (otherwise I wouldn't clean up my html markup or strive to make images be as low-KB as I can with my amateur means). This sympathy developed and hardened in the course of work experience some years ago at a corporation whose internal branding requirements during the middle part of my time there were dreamt up by some PC-semiliterate folks quite separately from awareness about kilobytes, server capacity, and mass-pho'py stickiness. I've also noticed that the Lyris server adds some sort of coding, with a lot of "20"s & equality signs, which makes my html messages harder to read in the message source as some people try to do. So I'm willling to take a few ameliorative steps. I am very glad that Joe maintains a policy of allowing html & images etc., but, since I've seemed to be the most frequent user of the graphic capabilities, I'm willing to send a plaintext version to those who prefer it, with links to the graphics which I'll put at some free image-hosting service like imageshack.us or Flickr. I do not believe that listers generally should be required to do this, but again, I'm currently the lister making the most frequent use of graphic capabilities and I happen to find it easy to take the described measures. I'll use html only when I'm including tables or other graphics. So when you see html from me, you'll know that you can just delete it because I'm sending you a plaintext version if--if--if you've let me know (off-list) that that's what you prefer. Those who already simply delete any message at all from me don't need to change their behavior at all, of course, and they, too, have at least some of my sympathy! Actually, I don't expect to hear from anybody about this, but I could be wrong, so I thought that I should at least offer. It is already the case that my html posts to peirce-l can be converted to plaintext without loss of info as to italicization, etc., and I generally arrange it so that the paragraphs are separated into email "divisions" (with the "DIV" tags) rather than using the simple "breaks" (with the "BR" tags) which some modes (I forget which) of plaintext conversion lose. I do recommend that any respondents delete whatever is unneeded in the response, including my graphics if they're irrelevant. I don't know how every email program works, but in the Microsoft ones, you can convert to plaintext by clicking on Format, Plain Text. MS Outlook Express automatically deletes images in the textbody in conversion to plain text; some other email programs seem to allow incorporation o
[peirce-l] Re: current version of wikipedia Peirce entry
Joe, My work was in the discussion section in the entry for "Truth"; Nubiola's work was in the "C.S. Peirce" entry. I'll dig up one of my emails to peirce-l about the "Truth" entry and forward it to you. Ben - Original Message - From: "Joseph Ransdell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 8:36 AM Subject: [peirce-l] current version of wikipedia Peirce entry Ben: I note that someone very like Jon Awbrey has been at work on the wikipedia Peirce entry, and am wondering if your own work on that has survived. I failed to make a copy of it for my own records after you had made your contribution to it. If you did I would appreciate a copy of it. Joe Ransdell --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] current version of wikipedia Peirce entry
Ben: I note that someone very like Jon Awbrey has been at work on the wikipedia Peirce entry, and am wondering if your own work on that has survived. I failed to make a copy of it for my own records after you had made your contribution to it. If you did I would appreciate a copy of it. Joe Ransdell -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.7.4/351 - Release Date: 5/29/2006 --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Graphics in posts
What is the functional difference between using the "DIV" and the "BR" tag, Ben? You say that it makes some sort of difference in email but I don't understand what you mean. Joe - Original Message - From: "Benjamin Udell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 3:41 PM Subject: [peirce-l] Graphics in posts List, I've been considering Richard Hake's complaints about html, graphics, etc., in messages. Believe it or not, I have some sympathy for his views (otherwise I wouldn't clean up my html markup or strive to make images be as low-KB as I can with my amateur means). This sympathy developed and hardened in the course of work experience some years ago at a corporation whose internal branding requirements during the middle part of my time there were dreamt up by some PC-semiliterate folks quite separately from awareness about kilobytes, server capacity, and mass-pho'py stickiness. I've also noticed that the Lyris server adds some sort of coding, with a lot of "20"s & equality signs, which makes my html messages harder to read in the message source as some people try to do. So I'm willling to take a few ameliorative steps. I am very glad that Joe maintains a policy of allowing html & images etc., but, since I've seemed to be the most frequent user of the graphic capabilities, I'm willing to send a plaintext version to those who prefer it, with links to the graphics which I'll put at some free image-hosting service like imageshack.us or Flickr. I do not believe that listers generally should be required to do this, but again, I'm currently the lister making the most frequent use of graphic capabilities and I happen to find it easy to take the described measures. I'll use html only when I'm including tables or other graphics. So when you see html from me, you'll know that you can just delete it because I'm sending you a plaintext version if--if--if you've let me know (off-list) that that's what you prefer. Those who already simply delete any message at all from me don't need to change their behavior at all, of course, and they, too, have at least some of my sympathy! Actually, I don't expect to hear from anybody about this, but I could be wrong, so I thought that I should at least offer. It is already the case that my html posts to peirce-l can be converted to plaintext without loss of info as to italicization, etc., and I generally arrange it so that the paragraphs are separated into email "divisions" (with the "DIV" tags) rather than using the simple "breaks" (with the "BR" tags) which some modes (I forget which) of plaintext conversion lose. I do recommend that any respondents delete whatever is unneeded in the response, including my graphics if they're irrelevant. I don't know how every email program works, but in the Microsoft ones, you can convert to plaintext by clicking on Format, Plain Text. MS Outlook Express automatically deletes images in the textbody in conversion to plain text; some other email programs seem to allow incorporation of images in the supposedly plaintext (or "unformatted") mode. Best, Ben Udell [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.7.4/351 - Release Date: 5/29/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.7.4/351 - Release Date: 5/29/2006 --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
