42 replies to this topic

[DavidV]

I have created an Objectivism Wiki at http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/

The Wiki will be a “hierarchical, user-contributed reference on the philosophy of Objectivism.” My goal is to make it the #1 reference on Objectivism on the Net.

For the next few weeks, I am inviting everyone to contribute content. Anyone can add any content you want, edit any page, and instantly see the updated, “live” results. (The system tracks all changes -- I am the only one who can delete content permanently.)

To help me sort through the submitted content, I am looking for several moderators to review and edit the content. Your job will be to correct spelling, grammar, and layout errors, in addition to any other changes or deletions to the content. Since anyone can edit a Wiki, you don’t even have to tell me you want to moderate.

The purpose of this thread will be to discusses the purpose, goals, content, standards, and other meta-topics for the Wiki. If the Wiki is successful, I may move much of the existing site content to it.

[DavidV]

Intellectual property guidelines for submitting content:

-All content you submit to the Wiki, whether original or from an outside source, is assumed to be in the public domain, unless explicitly mentioned.
-If the content is not the public domain, you must either obtain permission from the author or be the author.
-You retain copyright to the original content you contribute only if the copyrighted material is clearly marked by an explicit copyright notice. (If you import your own content without explicitly stating the copyright, you thereby release that content into the public domain.(!))
- Copyrighted content can also be included under the "Fair Use" use.
-Submitting copyrighted material is discouraged because it cannot be edited by any other contributors. If you do want to edit it, you must obtain permission from the author.
- If in doubt, ask me or the copyright holder.

[DavidV]

*bump*

[Prometheus]

*bump*

[BIGBANGSingh]

You should just convince Dr. Peikoff to let you gradually put OPAR online

[AwakeAndFree]

*bump*

What do you mean by saying *bump*?!?

Is that some sort of code I'm not aware of?

Anyway - I wrote something in Epistemology and I entered Axioms. Feel free to edit and expand it.

*bump*

[RationalBiker]

A *bump* is just a means to get a topic back to the top of the index subject again without really adding any content to the thread.

vES

[AshRyan]

A *bump* is just a means to get a topic back to the top of the index subject again without really adding any content to the thread.

vES

Yes, but since this topic is pinned, there's no need for it. I'm as confused as Eran.

[DavidV]

Yes, but since this topic is pinned, there's no need for it.  I'm as confused as Eran. 

I *bumped* it to make it show up under "the latest news" at the top of the forum. It uses the thread with the last post from the "About" forum.

Btw, other than Eran and I, don't see any new pages :-(

[Spearmint]

This is an fantastic idea, thank you and I hope it turns out sucessfully..

[AwakeAndFree]

This is really a problem. Even if I sit down with no external sources and write what I personally know of Objectivism, I'm running a risk of being accused of plagiarizing.

Assuming my definitions are true, and my explanations exact - they will be very very similar to previously written materials.

LP's OPAR covers most of these issues so fully...

[Prometheus]

My thoughts exactly, eran. Any solution to it??

Dinesh.

[y_feldblum]

Of course there's a solution. Be brazen and use footnotes.

[DPW]

This is really a problem. Even if I sit down with no external sources and write what I personally know of Objectivism, I'm running a risk of being accused of plagiarizing.

Assuming my definitions are true, and my explanations exact - they will be very very similar to previously written materials.

LP's OPAR covers most of these issues so fully...

A lesson I learned from some forgotten sage - if you can't put something into your own words, you don't yet fully understand it. True, Rand said it better than anyone ever could have, and Peikoff did a damn fine job himself, and while you may not be able to improve on "existence exists," there are myriad ways to restate Objectivist principles. And even if you have trouble putting things into your own words, there's still room for summaries.

[DavidOdden]

Of course there's a solution.  Be brazen and use footnotes.

Well, I'd say that you should quote verbatim and give the appropriate attributions (I prefer in the actual texts rather than in footnotes).

I'd sort of follow Don's suggestion: write it (and be brief) without looking at any sources and then include the supporting material such as a quote from ITOE. Hmmm. let's see if money can meet mouth.

[DavidV]

This is really a problem. Even if I sit down with no external sources and write what I personally know of Objectivism, I'm running a risk of being accused of plagiarizing.

Four things:

First, an academic paper and a Wiki have different attribution standards. When participating in a Wiki, you are not required to delineate your ideas from others, since a Wiki is by its very nature a collaborative effort, and does not present the authors of content.

Second, a Wiki has a different purpose than say, a philosophy book. You are not presenting a treatise of philosophy, but providing a quick-reference on various issues. You should refer to other works not only for content, but also to provide the reader with material to read if he wants in-depth coverage of ideas.

Third, there is nothing wrong with numerous quotes from external sources. The maximum length of the quote is contextual, but as long as quotes are used to clarify rather than to make a point, they should be used liberally.

Fourth, putting ideas in your own words is a useful learning experience, and I for one, plan to look forward to it as one.

[AwakeAndFree]

Oh, I am using my own words. But sometimes I get this strange feeling that my own words sound familiar... Usually when I check it out, I find that I used completely different words and examples than AR or LP, but I'm very careful about this.

And I happen not to have OPAR here for consultation.

I guess I should just wait until I get my Objectivism CD-ROM by mail, which will provide me with all the reference I'll need.

[Bowzer]

A lesson I learned from some forgotten sage - if you can't put something into your own words, you don't yet fully understand it.  ...there are myriad ways to restate Objectivist principles.  And even if you have trouble putting things into your own words, there's still room for summaries.

I agree. See Dr. Gotthelf's book On Ayn Rand for an excellent example of how true this is!

[DavidV]

I have created an initial index of topics. See http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/

[DPW]

Oh, I am using my own words. But sometimes I get this strange feeling that my own words sound familiar... Usually when I check it out, I find that I used completely different words and examples than AR or LP, but I'm very careful about this.

And I happen not to have OPAR here for consultation.

I guess I should just wait until I get my Objectivism CD-ROM by mail, which will provide me with all the reference I'll need.

Oh, let me do you one better. In my lifetime, I have come up with exactly two examples that I thought were striking, magnificent...insert whatever adjective you want. I was *darn* proud of them.

The first was in regards to psycho-epistemology. I likened the process of de-automatizing false ideas to learning to type on a different computer keyboard. The second was in regards to the need to act on principle. I had studied poker theory, and came up with a great analogy based on poker to explain why - even if one could "get away with it" - one should not sacrifice one's principles.

Well, it turns out Ayn Rand used the same typing analogy, and in his Understanding Objectivism course, Peikoff used the same poker analogy! Even when you haven't heard something before, it seems that chances are Rand or some other Objectivist probably said it first!

[stephen_speicher]

Well, it turns out Ayn Rand used the same typing analogy, and in his Understanding Objectivism course, Peikoff used the same poker analogy!  Even when you haven't heard something before, it seems that chances are Rand or some other Objectivist probably said it first!

That's a funny story. I guess that is the price you pay for not being born sooner!

Regarding using your own words to express thoughts: That is one of the reasons I so much enjoy the writings of Tara Smith. I have read so much by so many good Objectivists over the years, yet Tara Smith's words make me see Objectivist ideas from a fresh perspective.

One of the reasons I enjoy explaining physics to others, is precisely because of the struggle to express complex and technical ideas in a simplified form. To extract the essence of mathematics and physics and find the right words to express the ideas, is not only challenging but also self-rewarding. As I say in the introduction to my TEW articles:

"Although I love and revere mathematics, I firmly believe if you cannot explain a principle of physics in common language and terms, then you probably do not fully grasp the principle in the first place."

[AwakeAndFree]

DPW - Great minds think alike.

[DavidV]

Btw, I am having some severe problems with getting the MySQL database for the Wiki working after an upgrade. If anyone wants to spend a few hours tinkering with it, or can provide PHP/MySQL web hosting for wiki.objectivismonline.net, I’d be much obliged.

[AwakeAndFree]

The Wiki is not working!

Anyway - I want to bring to your attention an interesting initiative called Creative Commons (see - http://creativecommons.org/). This initiative offers a range of choices for creators to share their copyrights with others.

I think it will be a good place to start definning the Copyright status of this Wiki.

[DPW]

No, it isn't working, which is not good since I was planning to fill in the concept-formation / measurement omission stuff. Grrr...



I mean....yarrrrr....