Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive 6

Thread 1
Hi all. I have a suggestion for the citation style for Wikiproject Philosophy. How about we use the Cite.php and all, except take up the suggestion that we "Consider maintaining a separate bibliography/references section, then just the page number and book name can be given in each note, following Citing sources." This is from Footnotes. That way we stick with the general Wikipedia guideline of using Cite.php and a notes section for citations, but we also keep a references section that is common to the citation style in academic philosophy. Also, that way editors who are used to the standard philosophy style of citing can simply take their in-text citations and make them notes. Furthermore, it is nice for readers to have a listing of all the references, especially if they are looking for further reading.

Here's even a proposed wording for the Wikiproject Philosophy citation guidelines:

Each philosophy article should contain two sections at the bottom of the article concerning citations and references. The first section should have the heading "Notes" and the second section should have the heading "References and further reading".

The Notes section should contain the following code:



Each reference within the text, then, is made with the reference tag and should defer to the sources in the "References and further readings" section. See Methodic doubt as an example.

The References and further reading section should resemble the standard references section that is typical of academic philosophy books and articles, which is a sort of cross between the American Psychological Association (APA) and the Chicago (or Turabian) citation styles. Again, see Methodic doubt as an example.

Okay, that's it. Just an idea that I think would work well. - Jaymay 20:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thread 2
I'd like to propose yet another guideline regarding citations for philosophy articles: Any time that a person is quoted, or paraphrased, or a sentence of the general form "So-and-so has argued/believed/thought/said X" appears it should be explicitely referenced to a specific philosopher from a book, article, magazine, speech, or whatever (with appropriate page numbers and whatnot). I've come across way too many articles recently that have unattributed quotes or paraphrases in them (for example: ), and I think we all can do better regarding that. -Seth Mahoney 20:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I can only partially support Sethmahoney's suggestion. For example, in the link he gives, there is a discussion of Kripke's theory of truth.  At the foot of that article, on of the references is to an article by Kripke.  It seems to me that that gives enough context that it's understood that the section in question is a summary of the cited article.  Maybe that citational fact could be made a bit more explicit.  But I wouldn't want to go so far as referring each sentence to a specific page number in a specific outside article or book.  That degree of citation is more than an encyclopedia typically has (a professional article commenting on Kripke might do that, but WP is a slightly different style).


 * At the same time, the article context seems to matter. If an article about, e.g. Saul Kripke (or another particular philosopher), we sort of assume that the ideas summarized are those presented in the bibliographical references.  Of course, if a given thinker changes their thinking over time from A to B, we should say that "In Theory of Foo, Smith argues A; by the time she later writes Theory of Bar, she instead argues B".  On the other hand, if an article is about some general topic like Truth, some out of context "Smith claims A" is more in need of specific citation.  I'm not sure how a guideline would get the specific nuances of different article contexts... which isn't to say it could not do so. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not so much suggesting this be the case for every sentence, but for every substantial claim. (I don't think, for example, the sentence, from the same article, Relative truths are statements or propositions that are true only relative to some standard or convention or point-of-view. should be referenced)  So, for example, the claim that Kripke argues whatever he argued, no matter how many sentences, should contain a (footnoted) reference.  You're right that the article already references Kripke, but just looking at the references section doesn't tell you what that reference is for.  This particular example, I have to admit, is not so good - the title of the article makes it pretty clear where in the article it attaches, but the principle holds, and one of the things I'm going for here is consistency, and one fairly easy way to achieve that consistency is to just footnote references. -Seth Mahoney 22:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This suggestion should be implemented, and I encourage Seth to draft up a policy for inclusion in the project - I'd be happy to help. It might even go part way towards solving the problem of incompetent editing that seems to be ubiquitous at present. Banno 10:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As I've said before and in other contexts, I am stronlgy convinced that citing every single claim made in an article needs to be made enforceable policy. My philosophy of mind FA has remained unbeleievably stable and factually solid for the last several months becasue I cited almost every damned sentence from top to bottom with in-line cites. What I did was put a notice on the bottom of the talk page warning that any unsources edits will be immeditaely deleted. There has been no garbage since. It is one the very few FAs that has not degenerated into horse manure. Every one in a while, I am challenged on something in there---usually intersting and helpeful challenged and I have to go and find another source. This might not solve all problems, but it will make it one holy hell of a lot harder for kids and other less-than-serious editors to even start screwing around with serious topics. This will not result in elitism, eiher. If someone does there research and takes the time to study and get the stuff right, then they can write very good articles.

Experts in, say, philosophy of science can then check and see if statement Y attributed to Harty Field in book C, or what have you, is accurate or just plain nonsense. Of course, it will still end to being one or two people having to rewrite all the junk that is already out there. I don't know. Just a thought.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 12:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thread 3
I've unilaterally chosen Cite.php systemas the standard for philosophy articles. It is cited as the preferred method in Citing sources; but if there are strong objections, let's talk about it here.... Banno 06:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Will it improve the quality of the writing? Dbuckner 10:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Judging by truth, I'd say not. Banno 03:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, I love you both like brothers. Nevertheless, your complaints are worse than useless without specific critiques. Lucidish 18:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Another idea
I can talk about this here, but it has been banned over on the FAC review page and on other pages to refer to the "anomolous" Putnam FAC. Very conventient, eh?? Anyway, here's another idea that just struck me as (possibly) useful for the philosophy project. How about a manual of style for philosophy articles or adding a section to current MOS devoted to philosophy? As an example, there is a section devoted speficifically to medicine. Some of the compliants about "prose" that came up in the Putnam debacle were about such nonsensical matters as "italics are not used in text", "first-person locutions are non-Encyclopedic", "questions are non-encyclopedic and generate doubt in the reader", etc., etc.. We all know these thing ara acceptable practice in Philosophy writing. So why did I have only Dbuckner and Sam Clarke to back me up on this. We should be able to point to a page that says "how to copyedit and reveiw philosophy articles." It would be a long project, but it might head off a great deal of BS. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 11:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No unsolved problems.in philosophy
I'm tickled by the fact that at present there are no articles in Category:Unsolved problems in philosophy. I am tempted to put the whole Category:Philosophy in there. --KSchutte 21:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It does seem a little ridiculous. Maybe we should have Category:Solved problems in philosophy instead, though I doubt there are enough topics there to warrant a category...  -Seth Mahoney 20:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Can any one name one solved problem? ;-)Banno


 * Yes. It has been resolved that any such problems have either been resolved by science, will be resolved by science or has no solution.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 12:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy itself the root of wiki problems

 * This seems like a tongue-in-cheek problem on the surface, but in reality it reveals a foundational problem with the philosophy Wikiproject itself. We have the intuition that there are no "solved problems" in philosophy, because everyone seems to disagree about everything. IE: I personally think the Gettier cases can be easily explained, but others would disagree with my treatment; the old saw "If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?" can be answered by classical empiricism, but people can always fall back into skepticism; etc. The widespread disagreement of persons on interesting and important issues is itself at odds with the Wikipedian policy to seek to cover the consensus opinion of scholars in a field.
 * For philosophy taken on the whole, there are no consensuses, because even the definition of philosophy is open to dispute even in mainstream resources; and even if the definition were secure, the grounds for evaluation of particular works would need widespread agreement, which there aren't. It is only in subfields and traditions that consensus opinions may be teased out: i.e., in logic, and the history of philosophy. But even within these fields, and especially in philosophy at large, there are only vague trends of semi-popular opinion, which are difficult (though not impossible) to gauge.
 * All this leads one to wonder whether or not Wikipedia can succeed at all, so long as it sticks to the "consensus" criterion. We may have to have different aims. The question is what the standard ought to be. Lucidish 22:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy WikiProject Template?
I tried to find a Template:Wikiproject_Philosophy to put a userbox in my userpage, and I didn't find it. Is it somewhere? Louie 20:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The template is there on the main project page, but Louie missed it - now Louie is a competent, literate individual, as evidenced by edit quality. So there must be a problem with our main page.


 * Perhaps it needs editing - maybe to half the length it is now, with the use of sub-pages. Take a look at the table of contents - it's huge! Banno 10:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Goals and rigour
The goals are a mess.

Larry Sanger rightly points to the low quality of the philosophy articles here in comparison to other on-line resources.

At present the gaols of the project are set as:

1. To make the first visit of newcomers to the subject of Philosophy on Wikipedia enjoyable and rewarding, so that they want to return

2. To make it easy and enjoyable for users to find the philosophical issues and answers they are looking for

3. To improve the overall coverage of philosophy on Wikipedia, starting at the top:

4. To build a community of philosophically-minded contributors

5. To provide guidelines for writing philosophical articles for the 'pedia

In the first edition, the aims set by Adam Conover were:

1. To identify those areas of philosophy which lack sufficient coverage on the 'pedia.

2. To improve those articles which need help.

3. To create a general map of the philosophical articles and subjects on the 'pedia, and link the articles together accordingly.

4. To serve as a nexus and discussion area for philosophically-inclined contributors.

The original set is the better. The philosophy articles should be accurate and rigorous first, accessible second. Enjoyable is just a bonus. Navigation tools are a minor thing; the main form of navigation should be the click able links within the text of the article. Coverage is not as important as rigour.

The goals need modification. Banno 11:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Policy alternatives: tentative v. progressive edits

 * All of these goals are unobjectionable. "To improve the overall coverage of philosophy on Wikipedia" seems to include Sanger's concerns.
 * The biggest problem is a practical one: namely, that the nature of the discipline of philosophy is to argue and disagree. Philosophers disagree all the time, and incorrigibly so. Thus, (with a few exceptions, noteably including logic, history, and certain "traditions" within philosophy), almost anyone who tries to talk about "consensus opinion" is likely to not know what they're talking about. Without acknowledging this, the project is doomed to fall prey to the whims of excitable persons who possess a bit of title but not enough evidence. Lucidish 17:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Because I think it might be of interest to this discussion, I am going to copy and paste a comment I made at Talk:Philosophy.
 * In formal settings, the huffing, "good riddance to bad rubbish" attitude might pass as a standard, because academia has a certain rigorous set of filters which both intentionally manage the riff-raff, and unintentionally provide disincentives for participation until exhaustive research. That is very effective in that context. But in this particular institutional setting, that is, of "Wackypedia", due to the lack of barriers, while you may expect a decline in quality, there is also (conversely) no excuse for a lack of participation. This means that, in the former, absurdities must turn into dogmas, and serve to suppress real intellectual development; while in the latter, absurdities are as easy to scrap as the click of a button.
 * To emphasize, crudely: the institutional filters in Wikipedia which serve as a quality check are nothing other than direct participation and correction by the users themselves. Unlike in the academy, it is a corrective, and not a preventative, system. Which is to say, the workload is set upon the heads of the editors more than upon those of the original writers. This will, out of necessity, always lead to ad hoc editing of one kind or another.
 * This is not to say that I approve, or disapprove, of that. I'm just pointing out the facts. Lucidish 17:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * From the above considerations, the questions arise: "What is a standard of rigor appropriate to the Wikipedia?" and "To what extent should members of the Philosophy WikiProject be held to higher standards, due to the unique features and obstacles in the discipline of Philosophy?" The answers to those questions would immediately lend a hand to anyone trying to write a set of standards to guide editor and writer alike.
 * The first question is answered by the obvious conventions which don't need to be mentioned (NPOV, verifiability, "Be bold", etc). There may be additional measures. One plausible way to deal in all this is to adopt a system of optimally justified edits, where exhaustive research must be done before any particular edit is accomplished: in other words, a system which optimizes truth. Another is to have a system which mixes both social and epistemic criteria, where edits are done for the purpose of minimizing falsity, and then erring on the side of the benefit of the doubt towards previous editors when you encounter cases where you can't discern the truth of a statement one way or the next.
 * I don't have a stake in the outcome one way or the other. However, to show that I'm not just leaking words from the mouth for the sake of it -- that there actually is some contested issue that deserves group attention -- I'd point out that the former is the outlook of User:Dbuckner. Lucidish 21:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * For the sake of clarity with respect to the rest of this page, the doctrine of minimizing falsity, and its consequences, can be called a policy of "tentative edits". That of maximizing truth, along with its consequences, can be called a policy of "progressive edits". Lucidish 02:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-systemic obstacles

 * BTW, I'm the one who coined the term Wackypedia, in case anyone is interested in provenance. But this ridiculous little quibble serves to illustsate one of the other fundamnetal problems with Wikipedia which User:Owl pointed out in his comment, but which has been compltely ignored here: there are no incentives, indeed there are overwhelmingly strong disincentives, for knowledgable people to contribute to this project. Why should Roy Sorenson, for example, contribute to Wikipepedia (this point has nothing to do with fame or name-regnition, so please substitute your favorite local university professor or some very knowledgable colleague(s) if you are a professor)? What is to be gained? Credit for writing the major part of one article? of ten articles? of fifteen articles? No. It is obvious that someone can contribute absolutley brilliant (in the sense of extremely well-written and well-researched but not original) articles or major portions of articles and still not only not get any credit for it, but end up having large portions of it challenged by Joe the electrician (nor offense to electrians is intended) who has read some bizaare pseudo-science articles on the natire of consciousness and nothing stops him from beign bold and throwing in his 2 euros on one of the most exceedinyl complex topics in all of human existence. What's to be done? I can honestly see only one hope for this project (and it has to be an encylopedia-wide solution, not just philosophy): Larry Sanger's proposal to institute panels of experts (no, I wouldnìt fall inro this category, BTW, but I don't care) who have solid and verifiable credentials to oversee and review ever single article that is submnitted by a member of the public. As this is not going to happen, I don't see any hope. Period.
 * Someone said that Wikipedia is not a democracy. No, it certainly isn't. Not in the modern sense of the term where there are representntive institutuions (elites, in other words) which make decisions for the people they represent. Wikipida is absolute, uncontrolled anarchy (like so much of the Internet) and it illustatres once again why it is that anarchism and libertarianism cannot work in practice. --Lacatosias 09:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * These are all worthwhile points in their own right. The policy of "be bold" is one of those which may not withstand scrutiny; though it will actually take scrutinizing to get the job done. For my part, I think more is problematic with the "describe a consensus" policy, but whatever. Also, I reject Sanger's idea, because I think normal people who have a good will can do excellent things, so long as the guidelines are not sloppy and ad hoc; perhaps you disagree.
 * However:
 * you neglect the professional incompetence point; and indeed, treat it with scorn, as a petty "little quibble", despite it being at the very foundation of any reasonable or accurate hopes for any scholarly work, period;
 * ignore the fact that almost nothing else besides the inadequacy of the Wiki system is being discussed here;
 * conflate the problems of bold, silly edits which scrap good work (which is horrible), with the problem of the sense of entitlement to delivery of wrong opinions arising largely out of vanity in this context (equally horrible);
 * conflate the problems unique to philosophy with those of all disciplines, as if they were identical. Lucidish 17:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Peer review
Is there scope for an internal peer review process?

Several peer review processes already exist: for example.
 * Peer review
 * Scientific peer review
 * Article assessment

Perhaps we could launch a peer review process amongst the members of this project. Banno 12:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem encountered by philosophy articles was neatly summed up by owl232: Mathematics articles may be more reliable because people who don't know mathematics usually recognize that fact and don't feel tempted to write about it anyway.

But everyone thinks they can do a little philosophy. Banno 21:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Possibly because everyone can. Philosophy is mere love of wisdom, dedicated to a few general topics. Everything afterwards is just an accretion. Lucidish 17:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see what doing philosophy has to do with writing for an encyclopedia of philosophy. If other disciplines can record the ideas presented by thinkers in the field, why is this a problem for recording the ideas of philosophers? I have been mucking about in wikiland for about a month now - while I feel that I have the responsibility to make corrections when I have knowledge in an area (and time), I don't think I can make significant contributions to topics of specialization due to conflict of interest (I write for an academic encyclopedia and do original research). I'm sure other academics avoid wikipedia for similar reasons, but mostly due to lack of time and the priority of publishing works of original research over anonymous contributions. I'm seeing how mucky this entire project is without some guidance from the experienced (in academia or years of independent study). How can a peer review process be initiated if you have no idea who are the peers? I'm sure this has been asked many times before. Zeusnoos 00:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Peer review: academic and wikian
My only comments on this score are that:
 * 1) Wikipedia should be a serious resource. Fun is fun, but the end goal is still to publish material on the consensus opinion in the field, and do it by means of verifiable sources, and interpersonal cooperation. A key component of these is the want of a measurement of how to trust others as scholars.
 * 2) In order for "peer review" to make any sense, the concept of a "peer" needs to be understood; and in this context, that is constituted informally, as User:Jmabel observes, on the basis of who you trust as a scholar. The question then arises, "What makes a good scholar?" and "How can we best make use of the Wikipedia system in order to make it a scholarly resource?", and that requires some guidelines.
 * 3) What especially needs to be resolved is whether or not the aim ought to be to minimize falsity or to maximize truth. I comment more on what I mean about that in the section above.
 * 4) It seems to me that the appropriate standard to measure the trust in a person's scholarly abilities unique to the Wikipedian environment is reasonableness. By this I mean that a person maximizes truth where they know they have knowledge, minimize falsity where their knowledge-base is sketchy, and seek to understand the meaning and purpose of edits at all times (I take this as a correlary to the "presume good will" maxim).
 * 5) Contrast this to Academia, where institutionalized vetting is the standard. It has no place here.
 * 6) The philosophy section of Wikipedia has at least two kinds of incompetence which threaten it.
 * 7) One is that amateurs will write silly things. I've done that on occasion. This kind of amateuristic incompetence is easy to spot and correct.
 * 8) Another is that ostensibly competent individuals will attempt to push POV because they are in an advantageous position. User:Dbuckner's treatment of the article of Definition of philosophy is an example of what I mean; taking things out of context in the sources they cite in order to advance their favorite view of things. This is professional incompetence.
 * 9) I would warn against this form of professional incompetence, not just because it is a danger in itself to Wikipedian goals, and not just because it is hard to spot, but because it actually has a root in a sense of entitlement, and is not conducive to accuracy. See, for example, User_talk:Owl's conviction that one of the causes of inaccuracy is that "One gets no chance to forward what one sees as the correct views, because of the NPOV policy", and so provides no incentive to edit, and thus, to better the encyclopedia. The trouble is that this kind of incentive actually hinders any attempt to reach the goal of increased quality; since it implies going against publishing the consensus opinion in a field. It reflects, I think, a sense of entitlement, not actually a desire to improve the resource. Lucidish 00:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What Owl means is that the idiotic views of any moron who read an introduction to philosophy in some bookshop (if that) are counted as absolutely equal with the views of someone who has studied the subject for 20 years or more. What does "consensus" mean here?  It means that the views of an expert on the Peloponesian war count the same as some nut who thinks that skeleton warriors were involved.  Read the rest of Owl's comments, in context, and judge for yourself.  Read my comments on the Philosophy talk page also.  The whole thing is so insane.  What is needed is a system where the views of experts have at least a slight edge over the views of amateurs.  Otherwise, absurdly, there is no incentive for the amateurs to improve their knowledge at all.  Dbuckner 11:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting also that the Definition of philosophy is seen as POV. Of course.  It represents a consensus of academic views on what philosophy is.  I put it there as a reference point for the nonsense that has appeared on the Philosophy page for the last year.  Ask yourself, if that page were included in the Definition of philosophy article, how would it look?  Answer: philosophy is alchemy, philosophy is mere love of wisdom, philosophy is buddhism &c &c.  Of course.  To flat earthers, the academic consensus that the earth is round is of course POV.  Dbuckner 11:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "Context" is an appeal that must be made carefully. In this case, if you look at the context of Owl's page, I trust you will find no misrepresentation on my part.
 * For those who are interested, the POV nature of 'defintion' has been corrected after months of neglect. Dbuckner's original work systematically ommitted the remarks of Simon Blackburn in the ODP, despite having been repeatedly shown those remarks, and their import emphasized to him. This is the very essence of taking things out of context. If I took this seriously enough I might make the time to comment on other points, but it's hardly worth it. Lucidish 15:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Collecting opinions for merger proposal
I've suggested that Definition of philosophy be merged with Metaphilosophy. I welcome the project's thoughts on this. Lucidish 17:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

On consensus
Further up, Lucidish says that because philosophers argue, there will never be any consensus about the philosophy page. Nonsense. Anyone with a bit of training in the subject will agree about many things with others who have even the slightest amount of training. They will disagree about the difficult and subtle things, but Wikipedia isn't about that. They will agree, for instance, that philosophy is not alchemy or astrology. I've discussed this problem with other professional philosophers here - Mel Ititis e.g. who left this project in disgust some time ago. Everyone is agreed that the problem is the presence of some very vocal and persistent but sadly misinformed and untrained nutters who imagine that anyone can write philosophy. Mel Ititis' view is that philosophy is inherently unsuited to this medium, and says we should leave it at that. I agree, in that I haven't written or edited anything here for months, and will not until the policy is changed. Dbuckner 12:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not at all what I meant. The 'consensus' refers to 'consensus by academics in a field', not 'consensus among Wikipedians'. Given this, it becomes immediately obvious that I am in agreement with the conclusion that the Wiki system is unsuited for philosophy. However, I attribute this to two sources of incompetence, the resulting systemic bias, and most importantly, the fact that philosophy has few to no consensuses. Lucidish 15:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There is one point within that paragraph which comes near to my meaning, and that had to do with the "alchemy" point. But that's not a matter of appeal to consensus opinion in anything except a trivial and obvious sense. Instead, it is precisely in reference to the disagreeable subtleties you mentioned which I am accusing you of having displayed professional incompetence. Your case is a perfect example of the danger of professional incompetents impeding the quality of the encyclopedia. Lucidish 17:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Peer review and defining competence
On what this means (with a reference to Wikipedia) see this article by Brandon Watson (who is a very good philosopher indeed). Dbuckner 12:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the link to that article, and for your comments. In academics, I think peer-review should be replaced with expert review.  Since wiki is not suppose to be original research, expert review shouldn't be a problem when dealing with the general ideas in philosophy and lives of philosophers.  However, there are problems when experts (well-published profs) promote agendas that obscure the actual philosophies.  Heidegger studies is a hot-bed of agendas - the current article reflects a pre-dominant social and politically oriented camp (popularized through accessible but highly-POV books and articles) and ignores French interpretations of Heidegger, the Villa Nova/Penn State/Derridian school, the pragmatic school, and simply just reading all of his works and making sense of it - which frankly takes years.  Someone needs to, as objectively as possible, talk about all of these views, but should someone be capable of doing so here, she is more likely to do it for a publication instead. Zeusnoos 14:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't notice any particular biases in the articles on the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosphy, all of whch are written by highly respected modern academics and which are peer-reviewed by other academics. I think this is quite simply a red-herring to justify anarchy. I know that there is at least one nutcase out there (I won't name names) who thinks that Wikipedia is actuially a better resource for philosophy than the SEP or other such professional publications (LOL!!!), but let's at least try to be intellectually honest about these matters.--Lacatosias 09:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If you think this is a "red herring", it is because you have neglected to examine the evidence (see Definition of Philosophy history and talk page, compare to Philosophy talk archives), or even attempted to consider Zeus's own example. Indeed, to turn this on it's head, the example of the success of SEP is itself the red herring, if we lay in the assumption that the writers who contributed to it (which includes among them my own mentor) are reasonable persons; for it is reason which is simply absent in many cases here.
 * To put the final nail in the coffin, there is absolutely no scarcity of vetted individuals engaging in insane POV pushing. Look at Licorne. Lucidish 16:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm very familiar with the case and was one one of the first to try to get him kicked off the Wikipeda for pushing neo-Nazi theories about the origins of relativity theory. But all of this misses the point. Professioanl credentials and so forth are not the problem. The question is WHY is it the case that super-educated nutcases like Licorne, EffK and cranks like Ndru01, fanatical objectivists and idiots, ignoramuses and everyone else on the face of the earth flock to Wackipedia and not to the SEP or The Routledge Encyclopedia or the Britannica??? Because the sort of absolute nonsense which Popcorn insisted on inserting into every article relating to realtivity along with his legendary sources (the White Nationalist Wiki!!!!) would have been screened out instantaneously. Reason and anarchy (which is wht you have here, like it or not) are simply fundamnetally incompatible. Look, I gave it a try for three or four months. I wanted to see if this really worked or could be made to work. I have disocvered that it can't. It's just an infinitely large forum for arguments ad infintum (as this very thread demontsrates), edit-warring ever single day with fresh new ignoramuses and/or fanatical wackcos to prevent them from destroying any of about 150 pages in my watchlist. What the **** do you call mess lie that? You seem to be here argiung that Dbuvckner is promoting some kind of hideen agenda by wiriting definitions that are bit slanted one wway or the other??? You think THAT'S the real problem!! You're right I don't know the specifics of the case. I don't think it's important. Are you suggesting his behavior is totally irrational and fanatical in the manner of a Licorne? I haven't seen evidence of this. But, assuming that this was the case at some point, why is he no longer contributing or trying to spread his POV all over the the place now, like Licorne or about ten thousand other obsessive/compulsives who continue to post on Wikipedia every day. Look, leaving aside this personal question between yourself and Dbuckner, I'm discussing a much broader problem here. The question for you is this: WHY IS THE SEP MORE "RATIONAL" THAN WIKIPEDIA, if not because there is an inherently more rational system  of one writer per article, professional peer-review, accountability for what one writes and so on. Well??? This is nothing nearly as complex as you're making it out to be. Encyclopedic anarchy is almost a contradiction in terms.  --Lacatosias 17:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I brought up Licorne for two reasons: one, he shows how vetting is insufficient; two, that he was booted straight off the Wikipedia, showing that it is able to manage such sources of malignity. Prof. Buckner is a dogmatist of a milder sort. He has used his title, motivated by its adjoining sense of entitlement, to obscure the facts and alienate other editors who just happen to have some acquaintance with ideas which he doesn't fancy. This is not out of mean-spiritedness, I don't think, but nevertheless it is incompetence of the kind I outlined.
 * The institutional problems of Wikipedia, to which you present the SEP comparison, have been made in the Goals and Rigour section. My present purposes require little more mention of the SEP in this section, except insofar as they overlap with the issue of professional incompetence. I guess looking at professional competence is worth at least a paragraph.
 * The SEP is a fine resource. I can dream of many reasons why SEP works wonderously. Vetting surely plays a part; as does intrinsic motivation; as does a sense of identity which is reinforced by it, and extrinsic rewards of recognition. I can also point out that, in at least one respect, the SEP is marvellously dysfunctional: half its catalogue waits to be filled, because the professoriat responsible for the articles have not written them. The basic facts about basic disciplines are neglected. Lucidish 22:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for those comments. As you say, the fact this is going on at all is the real problem.  Dbuckner 18:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This is just a reflection of the sentiment you expressed before, being dismayed and shocked at the prospect of having to justify your edits, and supports my thesis that you are not in favor of being reasonable: i.e., of justifying your edits. I should think reason supplies its own motivation, unless you are in love with arguing for its own sake. Lucidish 22:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that philosophy is a consensus-free zone is almost bang-on the center of the problem. But another problem, of more relevance to Dbuckner, is that some experts simply write nonsense, out of human fallibility, and then in a rush of embarrassment (despite, amusingly, the relative anonymity of Wikipedia) attributing their failures to Wikipedia and not to their own mistakes. Lucidish 16:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The Blackburn affair

 * I'm franky baffled by your constant remarks about POV and Blackburn. I looked it up on the talk pages and can find nothing of that sort.  On the 13 April you added to the Definition of philosophy the sentence "ODP admits that philosophy has a second-order character, but also warns that "the borderline between such 'second-order' reflection, and ways of practising the first-order discipline itself, is not always clear".  Fine.  In the first place, such borders are never clear: that's philosophy for you.  In the second place,  I never objected to this edit at all.  The talk page of that article is absent of any comments of mine for that period.  What is the view of mine that is POV?  Please say.  Dbuckner 18:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You should not be "baffled" by this if you are acquainted with the topic of this conversation (Wikipedia and sources of error; sal

ient source, in this case, is professional incompetence). This would be especially clear if you had read my diagnosis of the problem in the "goals and rigour" section. The statement, "I never objected to this at all", is incorrect, though I can only fault you for not having a memory which stretches back a third of a year. I have linked to the appropriate section recently on the Philosophy talk page, so I'm not sure how you missed it. Here are direct links, in the form of a timeline:
 * Definition of philosophy, your edit. January 14, 2006.
 * "Lucidish: my point about encyclopedias and dictionaries was only that: anything we write should not be a million miles away from what you find in other dictionaries", in reference to naturalism. AKA "The Blackburn affair". January 15, 2006. Receives no attention, no reply, nothing. I perform no edit, mostly because of your previous insistence that it would be imprudent to do so, and your continued and manifold attacks on issues relating to this. I was intimidated by the prospect that you might thunder down and disapprove upon the bleeding obvious. This is deference to you for the sake of your title, professor. I was mistaken in granting it.
 * Definition of philosophy, my edit. April 12, 2006: became annoyed with the lack of change, so I edited it four months later. Lucidish 22:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Amateur incompetence

 * The most recent comments of mine have been directed against elementary mistakes. Rick's misunderstanding of the distinction between statements and inferences.  His absurd claim that Aristotelian logic had no notion of material implication.  His claim that Aristotle was an idealist (even you picked up on that one).  Your claim about the early moderns' apparent acceptance of Aristotle (when in fact the early modern period is characterised by its reaction to Aristotle).  Why is this POV?  Dbuckner 18:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I will only discuss the final point, the one relevant to me. You'll find my comments a few paragraphs below (see "minimizing falsity", discussion of "tentative edits"). Lucidish
 * Incidentally, I find it objectionable that you would use the words of a person which are only on the talk page, and do not affect the encyclopedia proper, as if they were fodder for criticism of the Wikipedian system itself. Lucidish 15:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * On the awfulness of philosophy in Wikepedia, it's not the lack of consensus that's the problem, it's the lack of philosophers. Dbuckner 18:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A conclusion is not an argument: thus, unreasonable. Lucidish

Worries over tentative editing
Some of you people don't even bother to take a moment to do a tiny bit of research to correct ridiciously obvious errors after you're informed that they're errors: "deflationay theory is just another robust theory (whatever that means)"... this is not a question of POV. It's wrong!! --Lacatosias 18:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, pretty crappy. Lucidish


 * Ah yes, that was where my argument with Dr Lucidish began. I was questioning the concept of the "tentative edit".  This is an edit, as far as I understand, that is made by the editor in the full knowledge that he or she hasn't the faintest knowledge of the subject matter (which the editor in question does not dispute), and moreover will not even bother to correct ridiculously obvious errors.  This is the "tentative, rather than absolute, edit".  Dbuckner 21:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not the meaning, professor; but of course, if you'd been reading, you would know that. Again: a tentative edit, in the sense I have used the phrase, is one in which there is actually deference to an authority in the field which curbs the extremity of one's revision. (See the phrase "minimizing falsity".) In other words, it is out of respect for institutionalized vetting that got me in trouble in the first place. You are, in this sense, making an excellent case for anarchy; not something I support, but there you have it. Lucidish 22:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact, here is the definition of the "tentative edit". "A 'tentative edit' in this context is one where the attempt is to minimize falsity, and leave the rest out of benefit of the doubt -- especially when treating the writing of non-anonymous users, and especially when said user purports to be an expert in the field. ".  I don't completely understand the concept.  I think the idea is that if you see something that seems wrong to you, then it is your duty to "minimise falsity", by substituting another statement in the place of the one that seems false, even though you are not sure whether the substituted statement is true or not.  I have been strenuously objecting that the editor has a duty to do fact-checking (the fact in this case was very easily checked, in this case, mirabile dictu the relevant fact could have been checked in Wikipedia.  You see why I am angry.  Apologies for being so, but it's painful to be trained in a certain way - check references, go to many different sources, check again, be cautious &c, only to find oneself in the world of the "tentative edit".  Am I going completely nuts?? Dbuckner 22:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You are advocating a reasonable measure. What you need to understand is the role of deference to title in all this. Lucidish 22:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I followed the link you gave, where the reason for my silence was quite clear. I said there was no point in continuing the (philosophy) project.  On 'deference to title', one should never defer to titles.  One should CHECK THE FACTS.  Yes?  I have absolutely nothing more to say on this.  It was foolish of me to get involved any more, and I bitterly regret it.  Dbuckner 07:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In other words, you were silent because you were wrong, but wish to justify it on the basis of lingering hostility to the project. That would be great, I guess, if it didn't directly affect the affairs of the project, in the way I pointed out.
 * Mind you, I can stomach the idea that I was being overly cautious, and that my tentativeness should not be held against you. But what I can't stomach is that you had already gone to the resource, and read the text, and ignored everything that Blackburn wrote.
 * As for "clarity", there's nothing of the kind, since your goals seem to butt heads with one another. You've spoken about the "hatred for experts", which is purely the product of your fancy, presumably originating from the horrifying prospect of being asked to provide evidence; and about how those who have been vetted, i.e., spent their lives researching, etc., are being marginalized over amateurs from Boise. That may, indeed, be a cause for alarm, if they were founded on the experiences of a detached observer. But you are not this observer: I have shown that, in two relevant cases, it was actually counterproductive of me to show respect and deference to those who had been vetted, and subjected me to your usual abuse. I consider this to be, if not a refutation, then at least an item for consideration.
 * I can accept, gladly, that you think the doctrine of tentative edits

is nonsense. I predicted that you would think as much in my original writing of the doctrine, which may be found a few sections up. I now am interested in what others think about it, especially those who are not deadset against the prospect of Wikipedia improving itself.
 * If you are bitter, I am sorry. This isn't a mess I wanted. But it is the truth. Lucidish 15:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, I didn't say that there was a hatred of experts. I said "The Wikipedia philosophy can be summed up thusly: "Experts are scum." For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War -- and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge -- get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment."   Dbuckner 21:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * But I've said enough. Does anyone else have a view on the "tentative edit" policy?   Dbuckner 21:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, it is quite wrong to say I am shocked at the prospect of having to justify my edits (22 April 206, Philosophy Talk page). I will always justify an edit, if made.  What I said was "Qualified philosophers will never contribute to the Wackipedia when they constantly have to justify quite elementary factual points all the time to people whose arrogance is in direct proportion to their ignorance of the subject matter."  You do see the difference between justifying something potentially controversial or questionable, from having to justify something that is elementary and factual?  This whole row blew up when it turned out you made an edit about the early modern period even though (a) you knew nothing about the early modern period (b) you actually admitted you knew nothing about the early modern period.  That was when I blew my top.  Why are you making edits about subjects which you admit you know nothing about?  Hence my remark about having to justify quite elementary things.  Why the bloody hell should I?  You are familiar with the acronym RTFM?  Then do so.  And don't write encyclopedias (DRFE).  Dbuckner 07:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The answer has been provided, and I stand by it, because I think it more prudent than the alternative of letting the plainly false fester. It's also more in line with your own desires, or at least, half of them -- but enough. Though I'm tempted to restate the irony of all this, I will let it pass without further comment, since every time I repeat myself I make the text more burdensome for third parties to slog through. Lucidish 01:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As another example of what pisses experts off, see the long discussion on the talk page of Controversy over Cantor's theory. Cantor's theory is famously a crank magnet.  If you look at the talk page, you see the endless discussion with a quite well meaning person and nice person who nonetheless has (to say the least) cranky views when it comes to Cantor.  Quite a few experts took the time and trouble to explain what was wrong with his ideas, and made corrections.  But said individual realised that experts always lose patience after a bit, and would come back and revert every few weeks.  Experts lose patience because the only thing in it for them is to help someone and correct elementary mistakes, and when they see that it is beyond correction, they give up.  But the crank will never give up, because the one thing that matters most in the world is to get his or her (usually his) cranky views published in the world's best known online encyclopedia.  Consequently the crank will always win (so long as they don't get into fights and insult people and get banned – this person followed the simple strategy of being polite, and waiting until the experts lose patience).  Dbuckner  07:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This example falls far out of the category of the supposedly "elementary", and I only have the lightest fog of an idea what it's all about. I can only recognize the nature of the dispute lies in a) proper interpretation of a source, and b) original research. This should be treated with care, and the critics should be presented more or less verbatim in this matter, because of the aformentioned sophistication. But any user who makes an active attempt to phrase matters at this level of intellect in plain intelligible English earns far more sympathy out of me, and that's at least part of what this user aspires in his project.
 * And there are plenty of critics of Cantor, so I don't see what the fuss is about, in the sense that, if the user cannot find quotes against his work, they are not trying hard enough. I see Kronecker was mentioned, for one; I'm told that the aggregate theorists may have something to say as well. One wonders, morbidly, whether or not they meet with your disdain as "cranks" as well. Lucidish 01:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Online philosophy conference
The online philosophy conference will take place in May

This may be of interest to the WikiProject. --Ancheta Wis 11:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Neat, thanks. Lucidish 15:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ned Block
I have sent an email to Ned Block asking him if he would be interested in contributing to the improvement of the philosophy articles on the Wikipedia. He has not responded to my importunings. I wonder why?--Lacatosias 13:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Bounties
I've announced bounties on three philosophy related articles: Nyaya, Anekantavada and Panini. Please help support wikipedia by improving these articles to featured status. deeptrivia (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Theory of Everything?
Do philosophers really work on a "Theory of Everything"? Do they really term it as such? Are there really articles by professional philosophers in peer-reviewed philosophy journals about this putative philosophical task? There is a presently a vague article that has no references, no quotes, no sources, and no specifics. The precise topic itself is not well-defined. I suspect that this isn't a real philosophy article, but rather a title devised by someone with "physics envy" (sorry for the pun.) See Theory_of_everything_%28philosophy%29. RK 19:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've not heard the term used to describe philosophical schools as the article suggests. But, then again, in my neck of the woods calling something a "Theory of everything" is an insult. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Last I heard there were physicists working on a "Theory of Everything" (or ToE), having to do with bridging the gap between theories of gravity and of quantum physics under superstring theories. But that's not likely what you meant.
 * The only answer I can guess is that any and every theory in metaphysics qualifies as a "theory of everything", as a description. But as far as I know, nothing by the actual title of "ToE" is grounded in philosophical literature as such. A quick search of JStor provides a lot of hits to superstring physics related stuff, and thus by extension to philosophically related material. But there are few links to philosophically grounded stuff, a few exceptions including a paper on postmodernism (Serious Philosophy and Freedom of Spirit, Ernest Sosa) and one on early Indian philosophy of time (The Buddhist Conception of Time and Temporality, David J. Kalupahana.), probably coincidences. Lucidish 04:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ken Wilber has several books out that address a 'theory of everything'. One is titled A Theory of Everything.  He is a philosopher and a psychologist who was highly respected in Transpersonal psychology and he is the founder of Integral Psychology.  His work draws heavily on Eastern/mystical thought which is very off-putting for me, but what I've read of his has left me deeply impressed with his intelligence and some of his core concepts. I do wish that someone would rewrite his work translating it into a western/rational style. Here is a quote from the preface to the 2nd edition of Sex, Ecology and Spirituality: "I sought an integral philosophy, one that would believably weave together the many pluralistic contexts of science, morals, aesthetics, Eastern as well as Western philosophy, and the world's great wisdom traditions.  Not on the level of details - that would be finitely impossible; but on the level of orienting generalizations: a way to suggest that the world really is one, undivided, whole, and related to itself in every way: a holistic philosophy for a holistic Kosmos: a world philosophy, an integral philosophy."  His method of integrating different systems draws heavily on the concept of hierarchies in the form put forth by Arthur Koestler.  I've always believed that both metaphysics and epistemology would benefit from more attention spent on this concept - it is so central to biological structure, evolution, organization of thought, etc.  But back to the topic at hand - if you look at his page, there are references and critiques addressing the nature and plausibility of a ToE. SteveWolfer 19:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

publications in philosophy
at List of publications in philosophy, there is an ongoing editwar of inclusion/exclusion of one of rand's texts that clearly doesn't fit on the list, please comment or expand the list with enough other popular texts so the rand text would be appropriate.--Buridan 12:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm one of the offenders in the editwar (Mr. Buridan being the other). I had done some editing on the article on Rand's book on epistemology.  As part of the editing I put it in the category for epistemology publications.  She is certainly not one of the favorite philosophers and always seems to generate a lot fireworks.  But it seemed to be valid to make that link.  She is a philosopher (however unliked in many academic circles) and it is a work on epistemology.  It seems to me to be a serious addition to the on-going discussion of Universals.  I'm very new to Wikipedia and must say that I'm at the same time excited by how much has been accomplished and dismayed at the ease with which someone can harm a sense of community or act out of POV while pretending to be neutral.  I would enjoy looking for mechanisms for better handling of POV so as to decrease the levels of contention and the destruction it causes.  If anyone is interested please let me know. SteveWolfer 19:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Audio files
Has anyone considered creating audio "this is how its pronounced" files for some of the more difficult to pronounce philosophers? It was suggested on Talk:Søren Kierkegaard, and it occured to me that there are quite a few philosophers whose names people (myself included) have no idea how to pronounce, and for many, if not most, users, IPA pronunciations don't help. The ones I can think of off the top of my head: Feel free to add to the list if anyone thinks of any more. But more to the point, I'm wondering if this sort of thing is doable on Wikipedia, and if anyone is willing to create the audio files. -Smahoney 01:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Kierkegaard
 * Nietzsche
 * Sartre
 * Baudrillard
 * Derrida
 * Foucault
 * Barthes
 * Kuhn

Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0
Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team previously contacted you to identify the quality articles in your WikiProject, and now we need a few more favors. We would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 0.5 and later versions. Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please keep updating your Philosophy/Religion WikiProject article table for articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! Walkerma 05:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the project to produce a CD is a waste of time. It seems to me to function from the assumption that there is such a thing as a finished Wiki article. But there may be some merit in developing a list of quality articles or some such as part of the philosophy project. Banno 23:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, we plan to regularly release updates, I agree that articles are never finished. The German DVD version was the top-selling DVD on Amazon when it came out, so there is clearly interest, and English language CDs are already in use in a lot of African schools.  For many WikiProjects, though, worklists and the bot are just a convenient way to organise articles,  please let us know if we can help.  Thanks, Walkerma 05:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to boast, but
Hilary Putnam has commented on his bio/article which I wrote (about 70%) of a few months ago. "It is better than the Stanford Encylopedia article"..."flabbergasted"... "Obviously, this was written by experts", see Talk:Hilary Putnam. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 13:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, and great work. Lucidish 00:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed renovation of Justice
Hello philosophers. I've put a suggested renovation of the (currently highly POV) article Justice on Talk:Justice. Comments actively desired. Cheers, --Sam Clark 11:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Complete nonsense
The article Jerry Fodor is currently being considered (obviously unfavorably) as a possile featured article. Where are the philosophers (especially analytics) who have complimented me on the quality of this article? Obviously they are too busy quarreling and blabbering in their own narcissitic bubbles about what it means to be a fucking philopher, and other such matters, in the first place. The complaints have nothing to do with the content of the article, so it can't be that some people feel they don't know enough about Jerry Fodor to be able to try to help address the alleged problems. No, philosophers and philosophy students are to wrapped up in their own thought-bubbles and arguing over who knows more about what than whom to be able to cooperate effectively. Might this possible be the reason there are so few features articles in philosphy and that the philosophy project in general seems to be a total disaster? Just a thought. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to reply except to say that it's a shame that an article would be denied featured status just because of some wonky stylistic crap.
 * Personally, I still think that the multiperspectival nature of the discipline can blind its scholars to other views, causing conflict in the discussion of broad topic areas. I'm sure that egotism is part of it, but I see no special reason why it would persist at Wikipedia, which is relatively anonymous. Lucidish 00:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Peer review of Global justice
Given Lacotosias's comments above, I wonder if I'm talking into a vacuum here, but I've requested peer review on the new version of Global justice I've been working on. Philosophers' comments welcome. On the JF article: can I just note that I think it's impressive stuff, and I regret that I didn't go and say so in support of its FA status. Actually, I was restrained by thinking that philosophy of mind is far outside my expertise. I'll jump in if there's a next time. Cheers, --Sam Clark 10:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sam, with all due respect and without (hopefully) seeming to be begging for special attention here, all you have to do, if you really think the article is impressive, is write support and state that you think the article is good. The people who are objecting certainly do not know a damned thing about philosophy of mind. Thanks.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. And thanks for your editing work on Global Justice. Cheers, --Sam Clark 12:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. Oh, a couple of simple tips that might save you a lot of wasted time. You don't have to write out, e.g. Realism about... . It works fine wothout the underscores. Also the first letter capitalization is optional. It works the same as "Realism" or "realism", but the rest has to be exact. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 12:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)