[lit-ideas] Re: Wikipedia
- From: JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 22:13:06 EDT
This was the sentence that leapt out at me --
"Larry Sanger proposes a fine distinction between knowledge that is useful
and knowledge that is reliable,"
Anyone wanna talk about epistemology, ontology, and teleology?
Never mind -- it would be over my head unless I looked it all up on Wiki.
Julie Krueger
========Original Message======== Subj: [lit-ideas] Re: Wikipedia Date:
10/22/2006 9:03:45 P.M. Central Standard Time From: _andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx
(mailto:andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx) To: _lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) Sent on:
> National Public Radio in the U.S. had an interview with the person who
started Wikipedia,
> and it was an interesting interview. He's proposing a new operational
definition of
> "truth:" Something is "true" if people stop making corrections to it.
This would guarantee truthiness.
But there's a different problem with Wikipedia, and all of these systems for
capturing
knowlege. It creates a sense that we have knowledge. But there are many
things that don't
fit into Wikipedia, and we end up with "well, it's not in there, so it
doesn't exist."
yrs,
andreas
www.andreas.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
