Wikipedia vs Philosophy

Question

Question proper: Serious answers are mostly not liked. And those most like the Wikipedia articles are highly-favored. Is this so?

How this statement is to be understood is, underneath, indicated or sketched: An expressionistic general question concerning Stack Exchange Philosophy as memory and as the annihilation of thought:

It seems to me that this site has a prejudice towards memory, that of articles and the, so to say, World English Speaking University textbook, by which I mean what is taught in introductory university classes and tends to correspond to the Wikipedia articles on the subject.

By and large, I have observed, serious questions produced by naive writers, who know nothing of philosophy, are remorselessly crushed and generally ultimately removed from the site. So that all real philosophic sense is stifled, and one is instead recommended to ask about the Wikipedia articles, in all effect. For instance when one is told not to ask about things a dictionary could deal with, and in many other cases where questions are put on "hold".

So, the result is that philosophy becomes the same as the newspaper, as Hegel put it, or, what is the same, Wikipedia articles. Memory replaces philosophic sense, and the real character of any philosophy is removed from discussion in order to get to what one can memorize from the Wiki pages.

Should we not, therefore, say that here we mainly have in mind the production of a reference database, concerned with memorization about comments on philosophy, rather than any questions about philosophizing? Which, one, here, mainly wishes to destroy as a form of obscurantism which is inappropriate to the scientific, the welt-frei, or worth free, age. Wikipedia is a kind of worth-free wissenschaft, for it is a matter of memory and not thought.

A sort of buyer beware warning should accompany the Philosophy Stack Exchange pages. To allow newcomers not to be squelched in the bud. Perhaps the following:

We have a particular bias, do not think that because your remarks are ill-treated it is a sign of a lack of philosophic merit. Rather, it is a sign that each web sight has its own bent or bias, and your question, likely of serious merit, has not fit ours.

So, the simple question, about which what is above informs us through indication as to its bent, might be stated as follows: Does this site concern memory and memorization, or thinking and thought? Thought on memorized articles, or thought about thought and what thought is?

Answer 1

The encylopedia may be said to be more concerned with the history of terms, as opposed to the dictionary; the former is used for the means of accessing culture, "where one may learn without cost of research what things are generally known" (James Russell Lowell).

I suppose that "philosophers" of all sorts want, primarily, to be believed, and that the encylopedia is actually a good symbol for that. People tend to believe what is generally known. You're not getting philosophical 'points' for citing etymology, anymore than you do for thinking about your opinions on what is not known.

As to Wikipedia, it actually does take some skill, to read it 'seriously', in the same way as spotting a good answer on stackexchange.

Answer 2

Here is the question:

So, the simple question, about which what is above informs us through indication as to its bent, might be stated as follows: Does this site concern memory and memorization, or thinking and thought?

Stack exchange sites are question and answer sites. Anyone may participate regardless of whether they are experts in the subject matter or not as long as past behavior has not banned them in some way and they have played the site's game long enough to earn the required reputation and privileges.

The OP suggests that the following "buyer beware warning" be posted:

We have a particular bias, do not think that because your remarks are ill-treated it is a sign of a lack of philosophic merit. Rather, it is a sign that each web sight has its own bent or bias, and your question, likely of serious merit, has not fit ours.

A "buyer beware warning" suggests there is a basic misunderstanding that someone is getting paid or paying others for something. There is no monetary exchange going on that I am aware of.

A second misunderstand is that the site represents professional philosophers. The site is self-managed by whomever happens to choose to participate at the current moment. It will reflect the biases of those current participants.

A third misunderstanding, which may be a red herring, is that the site is mainly about memorization. A more accurate description would claim the site is motivated by a game structure using reputation and badges if the topics do not motivate the participants. There are no badges awarded for memorization.

Answer 3

Serious questions produced by naive writers, who know nothing of philosophy, are remorselessly crushed and generally ultimately removed from the site

My framing of the same:

Genuine, often current, philosophical questions, expressed by philosophically unerudite, unsophisticated writers are remorselessly crushed and generally ultimately removed from the site, brazenly violating the site's own expressed dictum of being specifically kind and caring to newcomers

In addition I believe the slam-door-in-the-face senseless harshness towards noobs has only increased with the years: one just has to compare the responses to perennial old chestnuts from 6+ years ago to the corresponding responses today.

One important reason I believe this is happening is that the close/downvote system is broken: A downvote has at least a nominal -1 cost; a VTC is harsher but it has none.