Creating pages with no useful information can't possibly help our goal here of creating a useful encyclopedia. Please justify the existence of this page, or I will delete it soon. --LDC
I'm starting to get the drift (maybe). Let me ramble on a bit and see if anything comes of it.
Collabaration on any project can be improved if proposals are encouraged and taken seriously. Not everthing is submitted in final draft form. And even what initially looks finished may be subject to revision. For example, it was only over a course of several days that we all mutually determined that creationism and the theory of evolution are mutually exclusive. (Sure, some of know all along, but not others.)
I'm interested in situational ethics as well as situational dynamics. I think the topic is of importance, even if the first draft is unacceptable. Also, I agree that tacking it on to another article didn't work. Maybe Mr. C should have put it into /talk, but he might not have known how to do that.
Well, if that doesn't make sense, I'll give it a rest. --Ed Poor
I'm all for proposals and discussions--on discussion groups. Wikipedia isn't a discussion group, it's an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias explain to laymen the basic ideas behind common aspects of human knowledge as generally accepted at the time. Again, tell me how this discussion could result in producing good encyclopedia articles about some current academic topic. Is there a real academic topic here, or even a cultural phenomenon, popular movement, or something that an encyclopedia should report on, or is it just some ideas of some unknown author? --LDC
Chiming in to clarfy something. Just because an author is unknown doesn't mean he and his books can't have articles. I suspect what Lee is protesting is treating said author as an authority and his ideas as generally accepted. For example, we have an article about the
Reciprocal System of Theory, but we don't let the RST view on everything propigate throughout Wikipedia. Since such theories are not part of the generally accepted body of human knowledge, it is outside of Wikipedia's scope to include what they have to say in articles about
quantum theory, the nature of
God and the
cats. Likewise, Wikipedia could have an article about Mr. C's book, but we won't allow him to tag his views onto articles like
predestination and
sociology. --
STG
What's more, Mr. C. was writing about himself in the third person as though it wasn't him writing about himself. It appeared at best ingenuous and at worst self-promoting. If we were to have an article on early medieval literacy (which we may get) I could quote myself; I wouldn't, because it would be in bad taste AND I am not the world's best-known expert in that tiny, tiny subject. I can imagine including something I had written for 'further reading'. --MichaelTinkler
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)