[Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

Tue Sep 21 08:40:43 UTC 2010

  On 09/21/10 12:10 AM, Peter Damian wrote:
> Various grammatical/stylistic errors, laundry list, discontinuity of 
> tense,
> 1066 style, etc.  I brought it up because Johnson was insisting that someone
> without formal training in the humanities could write an article just as
> well as someone with formal training.

Of course his statement is correct. Grammar and style are matters of 
form, not content.

The risk is that the amateur will fall into common errors and traps, and 
will lack overall perspective.  The risk for the expert is that he stops 
questioning the assumptions that underpin his opinions.

I agree that the demand for quotes is often excessive.  Editors have too 
often felt the need to defend the accuracy of Wikipedia, so much so that 
they themselves are insecure about the whole project.  They end up 
striving for an impossible perfection.— a common ailment of geeks and 
gifted children.

Yes, every subject area has its canon of orthodox texts to which the 
reader can be directed if he wants further information.  Concepts that 
are consistently treated across a number of such texts should not need 
detailed identification.  Listing several such texts in a bibliography 
allows the reader to choose the reference work that is most available to 
him.

Precise references are more important when a claim deviates from or adds 
to the standard text.

The problem of access to old obscure works and journals remains. The 
challenge then is to make the obscure material more available to keep 
people from falling into recentism.

Ec