User:Scmcewen/sandbox

Ambiguity
Wikipedia vs. Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Ambiguity is a term used in philosophical circles to categorize imprecise ideas and phrases. One of the major subjects in the study of the philosophy of language, ambiguity can be either dissected in understanding how the semantics of language operate, or it can be used to prove a point, make a joke, and improve a work of art. This essay will explore two introductory articles on the subject of ambiguity, one taken from Wikipedia and the other from the Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy, comparing and contrasting their content, tone, and credibility in order to determine the superior article.

Ambiguity is defined clearly and immediately in both articles as any idea that is considered up to interpretation or that cannot be clearly resolved. Stanford’s take goes on to explain that the word ambiguity is ambiguous in itself: according to the Oxford English dictionary, the word can refer to either uncertainty or to having multiple meanings. Quickly refuted is the idea that ambiguity and vagueness are one and the same. While they are both unclear ways of communicating ideas, ambiguity is explained to have one or many interpretations that may be extrapolated, while vagueness does not offer any conclusion. Wikipedia’s entry stops there, but Stanford’s goes further to explain several possibilities of what ambiguity is not. This includes context sensitivity (terms which have variable meanings), and generality. The article states that the study of syntax and semantics are indispensable in order to study ambiguity. Word meaning and arrangement determine whether a statement is ambiguous. Next, the types of ambiguity are outlined: they include lexical (terms that are or contain homophones), syntactic (when a term has many corresponding meanings), and speech acts (ambiguity caused by dialect, syntax and semantics in speech). The article suggests structural analysis in order to correctly identify ambiguity in terms or sentences. This analysis includes exploring all possible meanings and combinations of words within a sentence, studying the indefinite areas of the phrase, and making a conclusion based on this research. The Wikipedia entry, skipping the former explanation, immediately divides the concept into subtypes. Lexical ambiguity is discussed first. The article outlines two examples of lexical ambiguity, the clearest of which being the word “bank,” which can be defined as either “financial institution” or “edge of a river.” Spoken language is mentioned briefly. In both articles, the concept of ambiguity as a tool for humour is touched upon in the example of a Groucho Marx joke: "Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I'll never know.” Both articles overlap in content, explaining the same basic conventions (lexical, speech, semantic, in mathematics, arts, and psychology); however, Stanford’s article goes a step further to explain several more subtypes of ambiguity than the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia’s article ends having discussed approximately eight types, Stanford’s offers discussion on five larger subjects with three to eight subtypes within each section. Finally, its bibliography shows a much wider span of research and examples to boot, including literary uses of ambiguity as well as studies of the term.

The two articles differ greatly in tone, mainly due to their differing audiences. Wikipedia, a general knowledge resource, offers a basic overview. Stanford’s entry gives an in-depth introduction aimed towards students and researchers of philosophy. Accordingly, the language of the Wikipedia article is significantly easier to follow than its university counterpart. The language is appropriate for the academic nature of the subject, but simple enough for universal understanding. Compare the two samples below, both defining lexical ambiguity:
 * “The lexical ambiguity of a word or phrase pertains to its having more than one meaning in the language to which the word belongs. "Meaning" hereby refers to whatever should be captured by a good dictionary. For instance, the word "bank" has several distinct lexical definitions, including "financial institution" and "edge of a river". Another example is as in "apothecary". One could say "I bought herbs from the apothecary". This could mean one actually spoke to the apothecary (pharmacist) or went to the apothecary (pharmacy)."

-Wikipedia


 * “The lexicon contains entries that are homophonous, or even co-spelled, but differ in meanings and even syntactic categories. ‘Duck’ is both a verb and a noun as is ‘cover’. ‘Bat’ is a noun with two different meanings and a verb with at least one meaning. ‘kick the bucket’ is arguably ambiguous between one meaning involving dying and one meaning involving application of foot to bucket.”

-Stanford University

Both of these samples are the introductory statements to their respective sections on lexical ambiguity. Clearly, the Stanford University explanation contains a significant amount of jargon and academic language. This writer assumes that his readers are familiar with the meaning of the words “homophonous,” “co-spelled,” and “syntactic.” The Wikipedia entry is straight forward and written more casually in comparison, though maintaining formal language. While the language of the Stanford article is intimidating to the average reader, the information is laid out in a format that makes sense. Additionally, the introduction to the Stanford article opens with a sizable overview of the information to come. This makes the information easier to digest and offers a full definition. Ease of access is a great asset, especially to widen the audience of an article – the easier it is to extract a definition, the more people will be able to make use of the information. In terms of credibility, bibliographic information, and references, the Wikipedia article – which is flagged for poor citation - falls flat. Stanford offers a huge, comprehensive list of references and further reading from A-Z, Aristotle to Chomsky, Shakespeare to Zwicky. On the other hand, the Wikipedia article entry offers a shorter, less comprehensive bibliographic list. It is not well organized, not having been fully alphabetized. Scanning the Talk and History pages for the article, it is obvious that many contributors have compiled the information. Many usernames listed as having made edits have since been blocked or removed. After navigating to a few userpages at random, it is clear that many of the contributors all had interests in philosophy and most of them held English degrees. On the other hand, Stanford University’s bibliography is extensive and well-rounded, including contemporary works in addition to “the classics.” In terms of contributors, this article has one listed author. Adam Sennett is a professor of philosophy at UC Davis, currently teaching several classes this year. He has been a professor at UC Davis since 2006, when he graduated with a Ph.D. from Rutgers University. He specializes in the philosophy of language. Taking this into account, it is clear that the Stanford University Encyclopedia is the more credible source.

After examining the available information in the two articles, the manner in which it is presented, and the individuals presenting it, I conclude that the Adam Sennett’s article from the Stanford University Encyclopedia is the superior source out of the two. Providing a wider source of information in an effective way with proven credibility and great sources, Sennett’s article is of a higher quality than that found on Wikipedia.

External references on Ambiguity
Atherton, Catherine. The Stoics on Ambiguity. Cambridge [England: Cambridge UP, 1993. Print.

Beauvoir, Simone De. The Ethics of Ambiguity. New York: Citadel, 1962. Print.

Caglioti, Giuseppe. The Dynamics of Ambiguity. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1992. Print.

Ellsberg, Daniel. Risk, Ambiguity, and Decision. New York, NY: Garland Pub., 2001. Print.

Empson, William. Seven Types of Ambiguity. New York: New Directions, 1947. Print.

Morgenstern, Mira. Rousseau and the Politics of Ambiguity: Self, Culture, and Society. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State UP, 1996. Print.

Scheffler, Israel. Beyond the Letter: A Philosophical Inquiry into Ambiguity, Vagueness, and Metaphor in Language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979. Print.

Schick, Frederic. Ambiguity and Logic. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UP, 2003. Print.

Walton, Douglas N. Fallacies Arising from Ambiguity. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic, 1996. Print.

Ziporyn, Brook. Being and Ambiguity: Philosophical Experiments with Tiantai Buddhism. Chicago: Open Court, 2004. Print.

Rough work, accumulated research from prompts
According to the Wikipedia page, ambiguity is defined as any idea that is considered up to interpretation or that cannot be clearly resolved. The article explains that ambiguity is often contrasted with vagueness. They are both ineffective ways of clearly communicating ideas. Ambiguity is explained to have a hidden interpretation, while vagueness makes it difficult for one to draw any conclusion. As the article continues, ambiguity is dissected into differing types. The first type is called “lexical ambiguity,” which refers to a word or phrase having multiple interpretations. The article outlines two examples of lexical ambiguity, the clearest of which being the word “bank,” which can be defined as either “financial institution” or “edge of a river.” The article suggests that a structural analysis of a word can clear up ambiguities through the dissections of all possible meanings of the word. Syntactic ambiguity has to do entirely with syntax. The structure of the sentence is what creates ambiguity. The article provides the example “he ate the cookies on the couch” as a sentence with syntactic ambiguity. It could mean that he ate cookie that were ON the couch or that he was sat on the couch to eat the cookies. This type of ambiguity can be cleared by rewriting the sentence or replacing punctuation. Spoken language is mentioned briefly: to mishear another person speaking due to pronunciation or dialect creates a form of ambiguity. Semantic ambiguity is explained through the example “we saw her duck.” It occurs when a sentence contains an ambiguous word or phrase. In this example, the word “duck” could refer to the bird of the physical motion. The article explains that people (especially logical thinkers and philosophers) can purposely use ambiguity to their advantage. Ambiguity can be used in debate, as it hides the content of a weak argument and can lead to wrong conclusions due to misunderstanding. The concept of ambiguity as a tool for humour is touched upon in the example of a Groucho Marx joke: "Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I'll never know.” Ambiguity can also be used in music, mathematics, sociology, and visual arts, among other applications. In the Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on the same topic, ambiguity is defined immediately as being ambiguous in itself – at least, the word is. The word “ambiguity,” according to the Oxford English dictionary, can refer to uncertainty or to having multiple meanings. The article states that ambiguity is used to present and make clear the differences between colloquialisms and formal language.

Ambiguity can, additionally, present difficulties in exploring the validity of arguments. In art, ambiguity can add dimension to an artwork by complicating categorization. The article claims that ambiguity can be studied in order to dissect the way that we think about and interpret the world. Ambiguity is separated immediately from vagueness (terms that are not easily applied with precision and exact meaning), context sensitivity (terms which have variable meanings), and generality. The article states that the study of syntax and semantics are indispensable in order to study ambiguity. Word meaning and arrangement determine whether a statement is ambiguous. Next, the types of ambiguity are outlined: they include lexical (terms that are or contain homophones), syntactic (when a term has many corresponding meanings), and speech acts (ambiguity caused by dialect, syntax and semantics in speech). The article suggests structural analysis in order to correctly identify ambiguity in terms or sentences. This analysis includes exploring all possible meanings and combinations of words within a sentence, studying the indefinite areas of the phrase, and making a conclusion based on this research.

While both articles include similar information, overlapping in many places, The Stanford University Encyclopedia far surpasses the Wikipedia article in content and detail. It is to be expected that a University resource will be written in a more academic language than an article found on Wikipedia, and my expectation definitely held true. The Wikipedia article serves as a solid introduction to the concept, and the Stanford University article is a continuation on the information that goes further and deeper into the subject. Wikipedia’s page offers a few examples, one to three per subject, while Stanford’s offers in depth, meticulously analyzed samples. The Stanford page also goes much further into depth on types and subtypes of ambiguity. For example, while Wikipedia’s article ends having discussed approximately eight types of ambiguity, Stanford’s offers discussion on five larger subjects with three to eight subtypes within each section. This article covers phrasal, truth conditional pragmatic, and presuppositional ambiguity, which the Wikipedia article does not touch upon at all.

The audiences of the two articles are very clearly different: Wikipedia is a general knowledge resource aimed at offering a basic education to any interested party. Stanford has aimed their article to students of the university, researchers looking to gain a working knowledge on the subject, and, since it is an online resource, the general public. This is reflected in not only the tone and use of language but, as mentioned above, the content. Wikipedia’s article is minimally peppered with pictures and the examples are simple and easy to understand (as outlined in the summary above). This article is, in some places, significantly easier to follow than the university counterpart. In parts, he language is appropriate for the academic nature of the subject, but simple enough for someone with little knowledge on the subject to understand. To illustrate this, compare the two samples below, both defining lexical ambiguity:


 * “The lexical ambiguity of a word or phrase pertains to its having more than one meaning in the language to which the word belongs. "Meaning" hereby refers to whatever should be captured by a good dictionary. For instance, the word "bank" has several distinct lexical definitions, including "financial institution" and "edge of a river". Another example is as in "apothecary". One could say "I bought herbs from the apothecary". This could mean one actually spoke to the apothecary (pharmacist) or went to the apothecary (pharmacy).

-Wikipedia


 * “The lexicon contains entries that are homophonous, or even co-spelled, but differ in meanings and even syntactic categories. ‘Duck’ is both a verb and a noun as is ‘cover’. ‘Bat’ is a noun with two different meanings and a verb with at least one meaning. ‘kick the bucket’ is arguably ambiguous between one meaning involving dying and one meaning involving application of foot to bucket.”

-Stanford University

These samples are both the first segment of their respective articles on lexical ambiguity. The Stanford University explanation offers a significant amount of jargon and academic language. The writer assumes that their readers know the meaning of the words “homophonous,” “co-spelled,” and “syntactic,” enough to draw new knowledge from them. The Wikipedia entry is straight forward and written more casually in comparison, while still maintaining formal language.

The introductions of the articles are extremely telling as to their content as well. The Wikipedia article opened with a very short, simple introduction to the subject, while the Stanford article offered nearly three paragraphs of information priming the reader for the coming information. In a question of preference, I much preferred the Stanford article’s method of opening their article. The introduction acts more as an overview and direction statement than a brief opening line. Upon scanning the Wikipedia article again, I notice that it is flagged as having “multiple problems.” The complaints listed include that it may contain original research, does not have appropriate citations, and needs to be verified for previously unpublished synthesis. Knowing this, it is even clearer that the Wikipedia article is less reliable than the Stanford counterpart. The article may contain opinion based information or be completely wrong. While much of the information in both articles matched up, the Wikipedia article was lacking in many places.

In terms of further reading and resources, the Wikipedia article (flagged for poor citation) lacks in listed works while the Stanford article is bursting with them. Stanford offers a huge, comprehensive list of references and further reading from A-Z, Aristotle to Chomsky, Shakespeare to Zwicky. The Wikipedia article, in fact, lists Stanford’s entry as a reference. Also included are twenty-three different book and online sources. Simone de Beauvoir, Corey Anton, and Focault’s works are among the most-cited for this article. Both articles list worthy resources, the majority of which either relevant or experts in the field. The Wikipedia article offers some online resources for writing ambiguity as well as a couple of university encyclopedia entries (including Stanford’s).

In the field of philosophy, relevance and recent information do not seem to be mutually exclusive. The ideas that philosophers work with are as ancient as the discovery of thought, so it stands to reason that a relevant resource for a philosophy-related article may be hundreds of years old. Stanford University’s article lists some of Aristotle’s works and Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet as the two oldest resources. The bibliography is extensive and well-rounded, including contemporary works in addition to “the classics.” These include Noam Chomsky and Gregory Ward, among others. In terms of contributors, this article has one listed author. Adam Sennett is a professor of philosophy at UC Davis, currently teaching several classes this year. He has been a professor at UC Davis since 2006, when he graduated with a Ph.D. from Rutgers University. He specializes in the philosophy of language.

The Wikipedia entry offers a shorter, less comprehensive bibliographic list. It is not well organized, not having been fully alphabetized. While the external links to how-to pages on ambiguous writing are helpful and interesting, the page itself does not seem well researched. The page also links to related Wikipedia articles: fallacies, logic, and philosophy of language. The majority of the bibliography is made up of contemporary references and authors, excepting Simone de Beauvoir’s work and a paper accessed online from 1942. Scanning the Talk and History pages for the article, it is obvious that many contributors have compiled the information. Many usernames listed as having made edits have since been blocked or removed. Knowing the nature of Wikipedia, I doubt very much that many of these contributors are educated experts. After navigating to a few userpages at random, I found that these randomly selected contributors all had interests in philosophy and most of them held English degrees.

Assignment 1
Contents:
 * 1) Wikipedia vs. Stanford University Philosophy Encyclopedia
 * 2) Wikipedia vs. Encyclopedia.com
 * 3) Wikipedia vs. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I compared three Wikipedia articles to three corresponding articles from various online encyclopedias: Stanford’s Philosophy Encyclopedia, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and Encyclopedia.com. These sources were found via Refseek.com, a database of various online encyclopedias. Each website I browsed varied in its academic function, but all but one were peer-reviewed and edited.

Wikipedia vs. Stanford University Philosophy Encyclopedia
The Wikipedia article for “Ambiguity” was flagged at the top for having citation issues. As I read on, I noticed many circumstances where a quote was left without a listed author. In terms of information, based on the limited knowledge I have on the subject, everything seemed to be in order; written clearly, concisely, and correctly. This article covered ambiguity in music, art, language, and mathematics. The second article, taken from Stanford’s Philosophy Encyclopedia, was significantly denser. The language had a more academic lean (as was expected), and addressed medical, linguistic, and legal ambiguities, respectively. The article was followed with a full bibliography, and was clearly well-researched and cited.

Websites accessed: ''"Ambiguity." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 29 Sept. 2013. Web. 29 Sept. 2013.''

''Sennet, Adam. "Ambiguity." Stanford University. Stanford University, 16 May 2011. Web. 29 Sept. 2013.''

Wikipedia vs. Encyclopedia.com
Next, I searched for information on Emma Goldman, using Wikipedia and Encyclopedia.com. The Wikipedia article was not flagged in any way and was full of related links, citations, and footnotes. It covered her personal life thoroughly, including a short biography of her childhood and adolescence as well as her adulthood and political stance. It was written clearly and but was very wordy. It included many headings and photos. The Encyclopedia.com article was taken from the 2005 edition of West’s Encyclopedia of American Law. This article was shorter than the Wiki article, but held the same information. It included no photos within the text and was in a block format. A list of further readings was included at the bottom of the webpage.

Websites accessed: ''"Emma Goldman." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 29 Sept. 2013. Web. 29 Sept. 2013.''

''"Goldman, Emma." West's Encyclopedia of American Law. 2005. Encyclopedia.com. 29 Sep. 2013.''

Wikipedia vs. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Finally, I researched Friedrich Nietzsche through Wikipedia and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP). The Wiki article was very thorough, covering personal details (organized by year), as well as philosophical alignment and written work (organized in list form both within and after the article). It was well cited with several footnotes and links. The references page was vast and detailed: a lot of research clearly went into maintaining this article. The IEP article was also meticulously organized, but with a less involved list of headings. This article covered the same information as the other, but seemed to go more deeply into the areas discussed. The footnotes/references page was also extremely detailed. The IEP information was definitely more academic-leaning.

Websites accessed: ''"Nietzsche." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 27 Sept. 2013. Web. 29 Sept. 2013.''

''"Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy." Nietzsche, Friedrich []. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2013.''