 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 |
Wikiphilosophers: a new Wikimedia project
Dear thinkers and philosophers, this evening I submitted a proposal for a new project within Wikimedia called Wikiphilosophers. Wikiphilosophers is really nothing more than a place to express philosophical ideas, engage in dialogue about them, and thus arrive at new insights. It is the place to learn about new or reintroduced philosophical concepts from others. I'm curious what you guys think of the idea and I'd love to hear from you! Kind regards, S. Perquin 💬 – 00:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Instant crank magnet. Sorry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean? I had this idea of a "philosopedia" for a long time, but I've just discovered since last week that apparently you can submit proposals for new Wikimedia projects! Why do you think it would not work or be a good idea? S. Perquin 💬 – 11:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- What you are proposing is essentially a philosophy forum. And given the tendency of existing Wikimedia projects to attract all sorts of eccentrics trying to publicise their (generally uninformed and ill-thought-out) all-encompassing 'philosophical' solutions to the worlds problems (real or imaginary), it would, I suggest, rapidly become overrun with such material, to the detriment of anything relevant to the pursuit of actual knowledge. Furthermore, any forum run by the WMF would, of necessity, require moderation (for legal reasons, if no other), and since the WMF doesn't provide such moderation, this would fall to volunteers. Even if such volunteers could be found, I doubt they'd stick around for long. I speak from personal experience, having had multiple encounters with self-proclaimed 'philosophers' who have mistakenly taken Wikipedia for the ideal place to promote their wild ideas. Almost without exception, such 'philosophers' have proven to be largely devoid of critical thinking, or worse, and almost entirely devoid of any communication skills that don't involve expounding on why they are right about everything, all the time.
- Feel free to disagree with the above, if you like. But can I ask that in doing so you provide sufficient detail as to how you intent to keep the signal-to-noise ratio under control, and to prevent your project from becoming overrun with fixers-of-the-world promoting their perpetual-motion solutions to the energy crisis, cures for imaginary diseases, and routes to world peace through the compulsory consumption of broccoli soup. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response! Indeed, there are still many things to consider regarding Wikiphilosophers, such as what quality standards a philosophical idea, concept or theory should meet. My idea is that every philosophical idea should meet a number of requirements yet to be determined. I would like to think about this with others. One aspect is that it must be a serious idea, which according to the writer could really bring about a change or innovation in philosophical thinking. Another idea is that all philosophical ideas, for example, should be substantiated with references to research or studies. There may be room for philosophical ideas that lean more towards the alternative side, but they should not become too wild or exaggerated. Those are also things that should be determined with the community. It's complex, but I believe Wikiphilosophers could have serious potential within the Wikimedia Foundation. That's why I'd like to brainstorm with others about it. S. Perquin 💬 – 16:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Another idea that comes to mind, for example, is for users to give each other substantive reviews about their philosophical ideas, and that the overall rating is displayed at the top of the article. It really needs to be thought about together, I think, so I hope there are people who also see potential in my idea for Wikiphilosophers. The wiki offers many possibilities and opportunities, but there are also many drawbacks and things to think about. Rome wasn't built in a day. S. Perquin 💬 – 16:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- We could also allow ideas to be challenged by people by giving them labels, for example, "Perpetual motion", "Imaginary cure" or "Idealistic solution". This would be displayed at the top of the page. It could then be discussed on the dialogue page (talk page). I think solutions could be devised for everything! But, as I said before, there are still many things to think about... S. Perquin 💬 – 16:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Another idea that comes to mind, for example, is for users to give each other substantive reviews about their philosophical ideas, and that the overall rating is displayed at the top of the article. It really needs to be thought about together, I think, so I hope there are people who also see potential in my idea for Wikiphilosophers. The wiki offers many possibilities and opportunities, but there are also many drawbacks and things to think about. Rome wasn't built in a day. S. Perquin 💬 – 16:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response! Indeed, there are still many things to consider regarding Wikiphilosophers, such as what quality standards a philosophical idea, concept or theory should meet. My idea is that every philosophical idea should meet a number of requirements yet to be determined. I would like to think about this with others. One aspect is that it must be a serious idea, which according to the writer could really bring about a change or innovation in philosophical thinking. Another idea is that all philosophical ideas, for example, should be substantiated with references to research or studies. There may be room for philosophical ideas that lean more towards the alternative side, but they should not become too wild or exaggerated. Those are also things that should be determined with the community. It's complex, but I believe Wikiphilosophers could have serious potential within the Wikimedia Foundation. That's why I'd like to brainstorm with others about it. S. Perquin 💬 – 16:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- What you are proposing is essentially a philosophy forum. And given the tendency of existing Wikimedia projects to attract all sorts of eccentrics trying to publicise their (generally uninformed and ill-thought-out) all-encompassing 'philosophical' solutions to the worlds problems (real or imaginary), it would, I suggest, rapidly become overrun with such material, to the detriment of anything relevant to the pursuit of actual knowledge. Furthermore, any forum run by the WMF would, of necessity, require moderation (for legal reasons, if no other), and since the WMF doesn't provide such moderation, this would fall to volunteers. Even if such volunteers could be found, I doubt they'd stick around for long. I speak from personal experience, having had multiple encounters with self-proclaimed 'philosophers' who have mistakenly taken Wikipedia for the ideal place to promote their wild ideas. Almost without exception, such 'philosophers' have proven to be largely devoid of critical thinking, or worse, and almost entirely devoid of any communication skills that don't involve expounding on why they are right about everything, all the time.
- What do you mean? I had this idea of a "philosopedia" for a long time, but I've just discovered since last week that apparently you can submit proposals for new Wikimedia projects! Why do you think it would not work or be a good idea? S. Perquin 💬 – 11:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Bloomsbury Encyclopaedia of Philosophers?
Does anybody have access to the Bloomsbury Encyclopaedia of Philosophers -- specifically, the article below? If so, I would be most grateful for a copy to help with an article I'm working on about its subject.
- Gill, David. "Heurtley, Walter Abel (1882–1955)". Bloomsbury Encyclopaedia of Philosophers. Bloomsbury Philosophical Library. doi:10.5040/9781350052536-0298. Retrieved 2024-01-07.
Thanks, UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Leucippus FAC
Leucippus is currently a candidate for featured article status. Reviews and other feedback are appreciated. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
FAC of Knowledge
Hello, I wanted to let you know that I have nominated the article Knowledge for featured article status. So far, there has been little to no response from reviewers and I was wondering whether some of the editors here are inclined to have a look. The nomination page can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Knowledge/archive1. If you have the time, I would appreciate your comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)