This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Wikipedia:Comparison to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:
Related Sponsors
The following comparison originated from the article Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. We use the abbreviation SEP in what follows.
Comparing the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy to Wikipedia
An exercise in quality assessment might suggest itself: compare the what is found on various topics at the SEP to what is found here (and perhaps, as further datapoints at other online philosophy resources). For example:
- Truth with http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/
- Axiomatic set theory with http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/set-theory/
How is one to assess the results of such an exercise? The following criteria and issues would appear to be to the point:
- Expository quality: how much of value does the reader learn from the texts? The order in which the entries are read is very much to the point!
- Reliability: how much trust can the reader, who typically is not an expert on the topic, place in the encyclopaedia?
- Comprehensiveness: how many important topics are covered? Naturally, each of these resources have holes the other lacks; particularly to the point is that the index of the SEP mostly consists of entries that correspond to an article that has been commissioned but not yet accepted, meaning the reader must go elsewhere.
- Bias: are the alternative viewpoints presented and presented fairly? Both projects handle risk of bias in a quite different manner, and it is difficult to compare like with like here.
- Granularity: the results of the above exercise may be unfair, in that Wikipedia coverage of the topic tends to be spread out over several smaller articles, so by comparing just the pages is to compare the SEP's whole summing up off a topic with little more than the equivalent of an introductory preamble.
Errors
Although the Encyclopedia is peer reviewed, some errors slip by the process:
| Article name | Error | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Identity Politics
[As of December 23rd 2006] |
"Despite a complex history of biological essentialism in the presentation of racial typologies, the notion of a genetic basis to racial difference has been discredited; the criteria different societies (at different times) use to organize and hierarchize “racial formations” are political and contingent (Omi and Winant 1986). While skin color, appearance of facial features, or hair type are in some trivial sense genetically determined, the grouping of different persons into races does not pick out any patterned biological difference." |
Actually, a "genetic basis to racial difference" has not been discredited.[1] The main criticism of the concept of human "races" is not that they aren't genetically based, but that they don't differ enough to constitute separate "races." There is clear evidence, however, that this concept of "race" isn't only related to "skin color, appearance of facial features, or hair type", as said in the article. One example of this would be sickle cell disease. There is debate as to whether there are further differences that result from "race." To sum up the nature of this error, no there are no human "races", but what are called "races" are actually genetically based to some degree. In addition, there are in fact "patterned biological differences." For an example, see this paper written by scientists who oppose the idea of a "biological race", but also observe patterned biological differences in these socially constructed categories. |
Wikipedia content modification information:
- This page was last modified on 21 May 2008, at 08:53.
Wikipedia Authorship and Review
Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.
Wikipedia Usage Guidelines
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Wikipedia:Comparison to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy".
The URL for this specific entry is:
All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.