Talk:Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
|
|
Contents |
[edit] Sysopism vs. Rehabilism vs. Politicism
Sysopism vs. Rehabilism vs. Politicism are reconcilable, not truly conflicting. --SmokeyJoe 11:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Okay; care to elaborate? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Yet Another Philosophical Divide
I've often encountered a philosophical division that I haven't yet seen described here. I've been involved in several editing disputes that revolved around the use of specialized terminology in an article.
My own POV is that articles should be written to be understandable to the lay person. It's important to explain specialized terminology, particularly where it differs from common usage of the same word or expression. But the article shouldn't use terminology that differs from everyday language unless it's unavoidable. I suppose we could call that Laymanism.
However, I have sometimes encountered editors who were subject-matter experts who insisted on using subject-specific terminology even where, to me as a lay person, it seemed less clear, or even misleading. They usually justify this by reference to subject-matter articles and research that use the terminology (which, from the Laymanist point of view, is a circular argument). We could call that Expertism.
--Tedd 06:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Structurism vs. Chaoism
Methinks that Wikipedia articles are becoming too standardized and burdened by structuring devices. I cannot see anything positive in navboxes, and even categories seem to be getting out of hand. The proliferation of infoboxes is turning wikipedia into a huge rolodex (which will be eternally incomplete and full of errors). The "standard" devices for tables, references, and templates in general are amazingly baroque, and make editing harder, not easier. (To use {{Cite ... }}, for example, one must write two or three times as much code than one would write in a plain <ref> ... </ref>.) The "spartan" standards for dab pages make it harder for readers to find the right article. And so on.
Methinks that most of that structuring and uniformization has zero or negative value, and Wikpedia would be much more pleasant to read and edit if it was simply a collection of plain articles connected exclusively by in-text links. Knoweledge does not have structure or categories: those things are all in our brains, vices that we inherited from mindless-parrot teachers and four millennia of befuddled thinking.
So, is there a WP faction willing to fight (or at least whine discreetly about) the takeover of Wikipedia by those bloody structurists ? Where poor chaoist souls like me would feel less lonely ?
All the best, Jorge Stolfi 143.106.24.25 06:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Anyone have a source for this?
I know a source isn't really necessary on a "philosophical" page like this, but, to satiate my curiosity, is anyone able to support the assertion from the article that:
The epistemology of this view is quite similar to the Buddhist view of language: words are just indicators of conflicts, since if no conflict existed, there would be no need to speak.
I searched the web for this "aspect" of the Buddhist philosophy, and the first result was this page, and I couldn't find any other topical ones. Is this just a bit of OR added in a way that makes it "sound good" (something I'll admit I'm guilty of in essay writing), or is it in fact a Buddhist view of language? It would be nice to know; does anyone here know more about Buddhism and perhaps have a source that covers this (or even alludes to it)?
-
- Peace and Passion 20:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
