[Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

Wed Sep 29 07:01:49 UTC 2010

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

> On 27 September 2010 15:17, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A few posts back Peter linked to several philosophy-trained editors
>> who had left Wikipedia, representing them as examples of the problems
>> he has identified.
>> I think it's worth reposting here what one of those editors gave as
>> his reasons for leaving:
>> So what can we learn from these clearly stated objections, and how do
>> they apply to the general problem of articles in the humanities?
>
>
> This appears to be the objections of someone who thinks an
> encyclopedia is a journal in the field, or should work like one. As
> WJohnson has pointed out, Wikipedia is not a venue for academic
> self-promotion either.
>
> You can hardly move on Wikipedia without tripping over experts in
> whatever topic you're editing. Why are there any experts on Wikipedia?
>
>
> - d.

I have already pointed out (and you agreed) that Wikipedia requires a 
different style and approach from the one of, say, the SEP.

> Wikipedia is not a venue for academic
> self-promotion either.

It is supposed to be a comprehensive and reliable reference source.

> You can hardly move on Wikipedia without tripping over experts in
> whatever topic you're editing.

There are only a handful of experts on philosophy in Wikipedia, and they are 
pretty demoralized.  When are you going to clean up this mess, David?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age

You said you were going to, some time.  Or this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence

If there are so many experts, why are these articles in such a complete 
mess?  We are not talking about a 'journal in the field'.  We are talking 
about a basic introductory article to a subject which in any comprehensive 
reference work would be treated with care and respect. Why is there no 
proper article on Theology? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology . And why 
is this one - a basic subject - such a mess 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology ?

Without experts to tell you there is a problem, you aren't going to realise 
there is one, I suppose.

With every kind wish.

Peter 