Talk:List of philosophical topics (A-C)

NB: This page was split into 4 pages. I am on a 768K DSL connection and it was taking more than 15 seconds to load. I can imagine how long someone with a modem would have to wait. I've tried to split the page to about 2-3 screens max.

---

Now that we've made this huge list of philosophical topics, it might be a good idea to get it completely right: the titles should be correctly spelled and capitalized and disambiguated per Wikipedia's naming conventions. Getting this stuff right, particularly spelling and disambiguation, will make Wikipedia more attractive to philosophers who are considering joining us. --LMS

I agree. I started this list on my personal page, and then moved it to a real page only after thinking it could be use to others. I am working on cleaning it up. I've been typing in topics as I think of them, and have not always been on a machine with a spell checker. I plan to finish entering stuff for all the letters, and then go ahead and copy edit the whole thing. Once that is done, I'll: A) start filling in stubs for as many entries as I can, and B) start trying to find people willing to work on specific entries. MRC

OK, so I am trying to clean some of these up. We can't yet disambiguate with (), but I think I'll put them in that way for now, so they will be right when the software is updated. Also, is there some better way of doing possesives than just leaving out the apostrophe? MRC

Just leave the apostrophes and parentheses out for now...or maybe it would be better to put them in, on the theory that by the time we want to write articles on those topics, the links will work. Actually, I like that theory. I'd suggest working with the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (a one volume dictionary-encyclopedia, really excellent, if you haven't seen it before) to check spellings and other such matters. --LMS

OK, I never got around to adding T-Z pages the first time, so everything is already copied to this page now. If we want to test using a manually edited page as a recent changes subject filter, here's a candidate. I'll get out my dictionary of philosophy, and type in a few more topic names this evening.

However, we are now maintaining these links both on this page, and on the "sub pages" -- should those pages be deleted? I'm for it, but the edit histories will be lost...

Also, by looking at pages which link to philosophy, I can see that there are a number of topics with existing articles not yet linked from this page. I'll try to correct that over the next couple of days as well.

Just redirect them to the main page. That will keep the history, and the links will still work in case someone bookmarked them.--Magnus Manske 19:57 Sep 23, 2002 (UTC)

OK, sounds good to me. Mark Christensen 20:00 Sep 23, 2002 (UTC)

What are the philosophers on Wikipedia doing?

Some philosophy articles, including purpose and objectivity, have remained stubby while stitting there for a LONG time, while seemingly sophisticated lengthy accounts on some others have been written. Understandable if a topic is obscure or unimportant, but are purpose and objectivity obscure and unimportant? Or are they perhaps unduly neglected by the current community of philosophy-mavens? Michael Hardy 22:37, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bernard Williams

I'm a new Wikipedian with an interest in philosophy, so hello to all philosophy Wikipedians! I've written an article on Bernard Williams, which I've nominated for featured article status. If anyone has time, I'd appreciate any feedback, good or bad, as it's been a long time since I read Williams, and I'm worried I've got something wrong, or have missed out something important. If anyone has time to read it, that would be much appreciated. Slim 22:18, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

The Wiki-philosophy:Some Suggestions

I have the following humble suggestions for Wikipedia and the Wiki Think Tank.

• Allow the Wikipedians to make entries about anything and everything as their firsthand knowledge or field of speciality. This will collect a great wealth of data at first and the evolutionary process (addition and editing) will make a crude material worth a reference.

That is already done and has always been done since the founding of Wikipedia. Michael Hardy 21:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• The continuously editing and changing status of articles has both its pros and cons. There should be certain point that only necessary editing must be allowed and that should be only for those who are licensed (from the Wikipedia) and well reputed editors. The talk pages should be open for suggestions.

• Some people (with an Wiki ID or anonymously or with changing IDs) have taken control of certain articles/topics and they are acting as Wiki Loards. They are editing articles to project their own points of view in a clandestine way and only professional people can detect such a behavior. Due to this behavior a large number of scholars, intellectuals and researchers are yet not taking Wikipedia seriously. This is against the evolutionary philosphy of Wikipedia. To nip this undemocratic behavior from the bud some thing must be done properly.

For more details please see page Talk:Habib R. Sulemani 203.82.48.55 14:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)