[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 
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."


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: