Hello, Y-S.Ko, and welcome to the English Wikiquote, a free compendium of quotations written collaboratively by people just like you!
- For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote:Wikiquote.
- See also What Wikiquote is not for common activities that Wikiquote does not support.
- To browse Wikiquote, take a look at our browsing start page.
- Before creating new articles, consult our guide. You may practice how to edit a page at Sandbox.
- Please remember to use edit summaries when editing pages.
- When posting to a discussion, please sign with a date by writing four tildes (~~~~) and saving.
- Be bold.
- 1 "Alphabetical by author or source" arrangements on theme pages is the long preferred form
- 2 Evolutionary epistemology
- 3 Template format and use
- 4 Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
- 5 Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey
- 6 Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
I appreciate additions you often make, but please stop changing the structures of theme articles from the long-preferred straightforward and clear organization (based on alphabetization by author or source), into one based upon arrays of eras — many years ago discussions occurred where I believe nearly everyone agreed that the alphabetization arrangements were more clear, definite and easily maintained than any chronological structure, or other structures that might be implemented. Chronological arrangement of quotes and definite works such as books or albums actually works well in pages for individual authors, but that or other arbitrary "sub-theme" categories on ANY pages, can often can be confusing, dubious in many ways, and more conducive to duplications and controversies of various kinds, than alphabetization by author or source. That being the case I do not recommend other structures than alphabetization in the creation of theme articles, for even when pages are as yet small and there is often little need for definite structure of sub-sections, simple straightforward alphabetization is usually more convenient and obvious than a chronology of statements from different authors or sources. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ …Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 15:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for Kalki. I think Wikiquote:Guide to layout said, "quotes should appear sorted alphabetically by author, except where historical development of the subject makes chronological order particularly appropriate." I think, in my cases, chronological order is more appropriate. But, If others think that other way, then I can be wrong.
By the way, I read some theme articles (such as Impressionism) that structure is chronological. How do you think Impressionism, and other theme articles whose structure is chronological? Do you think it needs structural change? I think, when chronological order is more appropriate, then it is not bad to use chronological order.--Y-S.Ko (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- How about Cybernetics, Agronomy, Abstract art], Object-orientation, Enterprise architecture, Chemistry ...? They all use chronlogical structure.--Y-S.Ko (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- I believe that ideally all the theme pages should be simply alphabetized rather than sorted in any other way, but it has not been a priority of mine to alter pages that exist in other arrangements. I might have time to attend to altering some in the coming months, but probably won't attempt to immediately. I believe that there are a few other matters more urgently requiring my attention even here, and many others elsewhere as well. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 22:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I have created a category for pages that are chronologically ordered. So far I have found 62. In order to help maintain consistency, I suggest that editors ensure new articles are alphabetically ordered by author or source, and help us to convert existing chronologically ordered articles to alphabetic ordering. ~ Peter1c (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Dear User:Y-S.Ko, Thank you for your article Evolutionary epistemology. The Bas van Fraassen quote claims that "Only the successful theories survive—the ones which in fact latched onto the actual regularities in nature." From a sociological point of view, this seems implausible. Many theories, particularly in the social sciences, survive because they are convenient for a ruling class and promote its interests. Are there voices in the dialog about evolutionary epistemology that adopt a more critical view, perhaps a hermeneutic of suspicion rather than a hermeneutic of faith? ~ Peter1c (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- (1) Dear User:Peter1c, van Fraasen quote is attacking no miracles argument for scientific realism. For van Fraassen (as an anti-realist), "success" does not entail (approximate) correspondence to objective reality.
(2) If you want a sociological point of view, how about reading Helen Longino's books or her SEP article? These may be imformative. Here is Elizabeth S. Anderson's paper in which, she defended the claim that some scientific research carried out from a feminist perspective is better than (allegedly) value-neutral science.
(3) Frankly speaking, it is hard to precisely and objectively define "success" of scientific theories. Thomas Kuhn, in "Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice," listed values that play a role in theory choice (accuracy, simplicity, consistency, scope, fertility). However, he could not find the precise and objective algorithm for theory choice, because sometimes scientists choose simplicity over accuracy, sometimes choose accuracy over simplicity. "Success" is somewhat defined within a (not entirely objective) paradigm. But...
(4) Even though it is hard to precisely define "success", and there are sociological pressure on theory choice, I believe that many theories, even in the social sciences, are "successful", at least partially. --Y-S.Ko (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Template format and use
Dear Y-S.Ko, thank you for creating the following templates:
- Template:Social and political philosophy
- Template:Philosophy of science
- Template:Ancient Greek schools of philosophy
I have the following comments about template content and use:
- While it may seem more logical to put the templates in the "see also" section, I argue the templates should be placed after the external links, since this is the established practice on Wikipedia.
- I argue that the templates should not have redlinks. I understand that the redlinks reflect articles that need to be created, but this information is of interest to editors alone, and belongs in the "talk" space, not the article space.
- I offer some formatting suggestions in Template:Social and political philosophy and solicit your comments. The horizontal line is necessary to ensure that the template renders below the external links section when there are floating boxes.