This user might or might not have an academic degree, and considers the distinction irrelevant on Wikipedia. "Wikipedia may be the largest collaborative initiative in history and influences what people the world over know or think they know. Its distinctive feature is the nonexpert, nonprofessional, noncertified, nonformal production of knowledge with credible content. Academics like to sneer at those characteristics, even as more and more of us acknowledge Wikipedia, support it, and use it in teaching. And why should we not warm to it? The rules of Wikipedia discourse are modeled after an ideal academy's. Arguments, not personal attacks or status, carry the day. ... Why, then, does Wikipedia work? In theory, it should not. In practice, it seems to be a new paradigm of organization, whose breezy anticredentialism tosses traditional hierarchies of knowledge production to the wind." Allen, Barry (January 2017). "Review of Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Wikipedia by Dariusz Jemielniak". Common Knowledge. 23 (1): 104. doi:10.1215/0961754X-3692492. "Thanks to a vibrant community united by a few core principles, plus detailed policies and safeguards against trolls and vandalism, Wikipedia has already become a piece of the knowledge ecosystem. Like science, its aim is to propose a synthesis of existing knowledge and conflicting interpretations of reality. ... The main criticism against Wikipedia is that it is a free-for-all domain without any professional standards. Yet even if Wikipedia has to be used with caution, it is not a free-for-all. On the contrary, the Wikipedia community has developed a consistent set of principles, rules, policies, and guidelines that have helped build consensus among a community of thousands of contributors (Jemielniak, 2014). ... Wikipedia encourages contributors to edit articles, and to reach consensus by engaging in discussion on the "talk page" in case of a disagreement. The process is typically Hegelian in nature: make an edit, then wait for the next change, and if there is opposition, seek a compromise. A variant of this policy is the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: bold editing is openly encouraged in the policies, as it leads to discussion, which helps make articles better. This collaborative culture, which is unique to Wikipedia, makes the community a living organism, growing continuously, adapting to its environment and answering its critics." Vandendorpe, Christian (October 2015). "Wikipedia and the ecosystem of knowledge". Scholarly and Research Communication. 6 (3): 1–10. doi:10.22230/src.2015v6n3a201.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Hello. Your edit over at the What Is Enlightenment? is justified and understandable [1]. So, I replaced that source, with the same source but this goes to a Google Books page where this Chapter four essay can be read by anyone who clicks on it. As I said in my edit summary [2]: "Move from 'Further reading' to be used as a reference...This (source) is speaking to Kant's question as posed in the intro. This is better than the removed source because this is available to anybody."

So, in other words, the problem of verification seems to be solved. Please take a look. If there is a problem with this let me know. I just want to post here to let you know what is going on - to provide some clarity. I appreciate that you removed that source because it was unclear which claim it was supposed to verify.

And, now that we are this point, I might as well say that I removed all the the original research and left only the intro. I affixed those sources to the intro. So, I am not sure how accurate the intro is. As editors we have only so much time to work with this stuff, Hopefully, I can get back to this article at some point. In any case, it is now possible to build an arricle that complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Apologies for such a long post. I did not intend to post this much. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve Quinn: Thanks for the note and for your attention to this article. I find it more helpful to put a reference as close to the claim it verifies as possible, instead of placing a bunch of references together at the end of a long paragraph. I still don't know which reference verifies which claim in that paragraph. Your edit summary, when you put back Schmidt 2017 in the lead section, said: "This is speaking to Kant's question as posed in the intro." But the whole article is about Kant's question! If there's not a specific claim that Schmidt 2017 verifies, then it should go in "Further reading", in my opinion. In fact, I am the one who first added Schmidt 2017, in this edit in January 2023, after the lead paragraph had been written by somebody else, so I know that it is probably not a reference that was used to write the lead paragraph. So I still don't see a reason for it to be in a ref tag at the end of the lead paragraph. Perhaps I could assent to your move of the reference if you could give me a better reason. Biogeographist (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the feedback. I have no problem with putting Schmidt 2017 back into the "Further reading" section. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]