Well, if you consult Britannica what they do in philosophical articles is
set forth the history of philosophical thought on a subject. Here we try,
usually unsuccessully, to address the issue itself. However, in the absence
of a recognized canon of knowledge on a topic our attempts are unlikely to
satisfy.
Knowledge is doable though.
As to art, right at the beginning of work on the Oxford Dictionary, they hit
that rock. And more or less did it.
Fred
From: Rotem Dan <rotem_dan(a)yahoo.com>
Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 14:08:31 -0700 (PDT)
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Larry's text on the "Knowledge" article
OK, ok you guys don't seem to get the point of my
post. What I meant was that ANY philosophical text, is
inappropriate for an ENCYCLOPEDIA, because it's
obviously cannot become consensus, and will always
remain merely a POV.
It's like saying that by creating a wiki trying to
"define" *what* is "art" , you will eventually (and
ultimately) get to the point of consensus. that
everyone will agree: "Yes, exactly, that is art".
Great, all our problems solved, the wiki said Art is
defined by X, Thought is Y and Knowledge is Z.
Some things just shouldn't be written into a wiki.
Rotem.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l