Wikiversity talk:WikiProject study before editing

Interesting that this was started on Wikipedia - it seems like a much better fit for Wikiversity. :-) How about to rename it, simply, "debating"? (or "debating group"/"club"?) Cormaggio talk 11:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It was deleted in December, 2006 (before WV was an independent project). I just happened to see a reference to it somewhere and asked Daanschr if he could use it here (I needed to undelete/import/redelete... there's probably plenty more there that was created and deleted even earlier, but it's a question of finding it). --SB_Johnny | talk 11:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup. We have Topic:Nietzsche and Nietzsche Name Game, which could fit in - I haven't searched for anything else. Daanschr, were you involved in this project (on Wikipedia) since its beginning? Cormaggio talk 11:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh. Import was successful :-). --SB_Johnny | talk 12:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I was the only contributor. I abandoned the project because after months nobody else had joined yet. It was a point when i lost faith in the whole Wikipedia enterprise. If i hadn't had some spare time, i would have made an end to all activity on Wikipedia and related projects.--Daanschr 20:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Although it would be tempting to make a wild/informed guess as to why you lost faith in Wikipedia, let me remain faithful to the spirit of this project and ask you to say more about what caused you to lose faith. Did you become disappointed because Wikipedia failed to live up to your initial expectations?  —Moulton 11:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I came to Wikipedia in surprise. At first i thought it was a traditional encyclopedia. I liked to click on links. When i discovered that the timeline of earth was extremely long, i knew that an incredible amount of people must have put information in it. Than i discovered i could edit it instantly, and so i enthusiastically created and edited articles. The first moment that i became disgruntled was when i saw the article History of the World. It was so appallingly bad, that i wanted to leave. I didn't leave and decided to improve the article myself. The problem was the lack of people on the talk page. So, i put an entry on the article improvement drive, or whatever it is called. History of the World won and was edited for a week by an incredible amount of people. The main structure of the article has been made by me. Another problem occured, namely that nobody was interested in the main story and structure of the article accept for me. Most of the edits were grammatical corrections and there was much ado about the name of the article, something i wasn't very much interested in. This is one example of a problem occuring on most history related articles. I started the Organized Deabte Wikiproject, which didn't got much attention. I went to the expert rebellion article, to discover that there was hardly any activity there. I was part of the foundation of Citizendium, which was an inspiring experience. There was a nice crowd of academicly schooled people all with different experiences in life. The problem there was the eoconservative ideology of the founder, Larry Sanger, who wanted American English only, and tried to make an end to all nudity, insulting a lesbian woman. He wanted an autocratic rule in Citizendium with him in charge, which i regarded as morally wrong. Afterwards, i became a member of Wikiversity. Wikiversity doesn't have the academic expertise, the commitment, ideas and management skills of the people who founded Citizendium, but i do like the spirit of freedom, which is essential to success in my opinion. I think the main opponents of Wikiversity are apathy, lack of insight and lack of participance.--Daanschr 21:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikiversity already was active. I entered Wikiversity soon after establishing this project and convinced Mystictim from Wikiversity to become a member of it.--Daanschr 20:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"to promote the acquiring of all relevant literature on a subject"
Clueless. Simply clueless. WAS 4.250 06:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is only an ideal, not the practise.--Daanschr 20:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But it is not ideal. Ideal is for everyone to have access to that small subset that they can understand (in their language and at their educational level) that is best written and most reliable. Emphasis on quality, reliability and readability as well as accessibility. The quantity of available material in specialist libraries and private collection and opinions on the web are vast beyond reckoning. The problem for a scholar is not getting all of it, but winnowing it down to the best for his purpose. WAS 4.250 21:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That is why i use the word relevant. Relevant can be something small.--Daanschr 07:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You made me laugh. I recall once hearing "you make a small word do an awful lot of work". You make the word "relevant" do far more than the dictionary or common understanding would call on it to do. Give it more words to help it convey your meaning. That word is plum tired out from all the work you require it to do! WAS 4.250 07:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that the practical implementation of words are more important than the words themselves. My idea behind this project is to establish a civil society, where different groups with different rules can all work within a simple widely applying format. The format consists out of 1) group of people who meet eachother on the internet 2) who are involved into studying and discussing knowledge to gain a deep understanding, which requires time, structure and commitment. I think it would be good to change the intro ones in a while, in order to adapt it to changing circumstances. Can you agree at least with the two points if you are interested?--Daanschr 21:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Purpose and ProcedureDaanschr's Initial Version

Outsiders and experts have the complaint that Wikipedia is severely lacking in quality. An expert is someone who has studied for years to acquire expertise. To acquire expertise, it is necessary to read many books and to submit to the methodology of a field of study. To make sure that an expert gets more influence on the contents of an article, I want to propose to promote the acquiring of all relevant literature on a subject and debate on this, before editing an article. The resulting version of an article after the debate can be immortalised in a template on the talk page of the article and on a special project page where the debates are organized. This project page will be hosting several unchangeable versions of articles and it will be an integral part of Wikipedia, without breaking any of the rules, while circumventing the bureaucratic system of Wikipedia.

Were I to edit the above statement of purpose, I might morph it into something like this:

Vision, Purpose, and MethodologyMoulton's Suggested Revision

Observers often complain that Wikipedia articles and discussions are of poor quality. Subject-matter experts who have studied a field for years have absorbed most of the relevant literature in the field and have established peer-reviewed practices for ongoing research. It would make sense for those crafting articles on Wikipedia to tap into the expertise of subject-matter experts by systematically reviewing the most germane literature and ensuring they have a clear appreciation and understanding of it. It would be especially worthwhile to invite recognized subject-matter experts to actively consult with those Wikipedians who are interested enough in a subject to prepare an article on it. Such workshops (on or off-wiki) with subject-matter experts and concomitant downstream discussions could be identified as a resource on an article's talk page. This project proposes to craft versions of articles prepared in such a non-standard manner to demonstrate the potential of this idea.

Moulton 12:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * When i stated this project i already considered the possibility that experts might come in who actually write the books that could be used for a debate. I didn't write anything about it, because i presumed that such experts might turn up later on. I thought that book-reading only would not be enough and that a different kind of lets say 'dialogue' would be necessary.
 * I have some issues with the idea of subject-matter experts consulting Wikipedians to prepare an article.
 * 1) What if some Wikipedians are interested in a subject, but can't find an subject-matter expert? They could read books and discuss them before editing an article. But, what if a Wikipedian interested in a subject can't find other Wikipedians interested in it? Than maybe an institute could help where Wikipedians can find eachother who want to edit an article while using books, which could also be an institute where experts can come to guide interested Wikipedians.
 * 2) What if a subject-matter expert has a one-sided perspective on a subject and that other experts with different perspectives are not reachable for guidance? Are books of these subject-matter experts allowed to be entered into the discussion?
 * 3) There seems to be a certain antipathy towards experts and a lack of interest in the hard work of acquiring knowledge. This is a cultural problem. Users can be learned to accept experts, but this requires trust (in which point 2 above is important) and it requires the hard work of establishing a method, a set of rules and practices.


 * I once had a plan to establish three kind of institutes. One in which non-experts can acquiring knowledge together. Secondly a place for academics of all kinds where they can study their expertise and come into contact with those with another kind of expertise. And a third one, in between, where amateurs and experts can work together in order to bring knowledge to a wider public, by creating youtube films, online entertainment competitive with television and improving articles on Wikipedia etc.--Daanschr 21:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Part of a discussion, derived from SB-Johnny's talk page

 * Somewhere in the burgeoning text of the project which WAS 4.250 and I just started, you will find a reference to Bohmian Dialogue, named for David Bohm. Bohmian Dialogue is similar to Socratic Dialogue, but somewhat more free form.  A key notion in Bohmian Dialogue is that it is not a competitive debate, but a cooperative inquiry of joint discovery.  Deborah Tannen made this distinction clear in her classic criticism, The Argument Culture: Stopping America's War of Words.  If you are interested in improving intellectual conversations, consider evolving from the Debate Paradigm to the Dialogue Model.  If that notion appeals to you, I would be most interested in participating in your project.  —Moulton 22:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Moulton, with debate, i didn't mean a conflict, but rather joined reading, discussing of texts and editing of articles. It could be possible in my view to have a debate with people who are of the same mind, but who have to find out what the texts that they read are exactly about. The projects' name could be changed to intellectual dialogue, instead of intellectual debate. I would be happy to welcome you ;-) --Daanschr 05:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Change debate to any of discourse, dialogue or inquiry and I'm in. —Moulton 05:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Done!--Daanschr 10:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And, true to my word, I'm in. —Moulton 11:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you interested in the chat-meeting on this project which will be held this saturday at UTC 5 o' clock in the afternoon? (Sorry for using your talk page for such a long discussion, Johnny)--Daanschr 10:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Saturday at 17:00 UTC is 13:00 EDT. At that hour on Saturdays I am at the Science Museum.  —Moulton 02:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we can discuss it here or on another date on the chat?--Daanschr 07:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure. I have Skype and can open a voice connex most any time.  Several other chat/voice systems are also at hand.  Many of us use Google Chat.  —Moulton 11:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have skype, but i do have google chat.--Daanschr 21:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Still not satisfied with the name
The present name for this project is too complicated. It is a project about book reading to reach an in depth understanding of a certain subject. This in depth understanding will be reached in a dialogue between people who have read the books/took attention to other sources. The dialogue will only take one month and will be prepared for a year. During the month a paper will be written collectively. Any dissagreements can be resolved in footnotes. Not the paper itself, but the dialogue and the subsequent acquiring of knowledge is the main goal of the project. Maybe other users have a different idea behind this project if they want to join. Any suggestions for an understandable name which could appeal to a wider public?--Daanschr 08:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How about Reading for Insight ? —Moulton 12:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. But, i discussed with Erkan Yilmaz that other sources other than those that can be read, could be used in this project. Sources like audio. I think the name issue requires some time.--Daanschr 21:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Insightful Inquiry ? —Moulton 00:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am in for that one.--Daanschr 07:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There are book clubs where everyone is supposed to read the same book and then once a month they meet to talk about the book. On wikipedia, go to a popular article or forum you are interested in and talk about the subject and you can get the same kind of discussion. I think you need to go where the people already are. The web is not short of talk forums. In some of them, people actually know what they are talking about. You have to find the right place and people. WAS 4.250 08:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I discovered that articles which i liked didn't have much discussion going on on Wikipedia. A book club would be a nice idea. I have searched for it sometimes. I like non-fiction, but most book clubs seem to be about fiction.--Daanschr 10:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you tell us more about what specific topics or books you have in mind at this time? —Moulton 11:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you mean at this time for this project than my answer is that it requires a collective decision. A problem on Wikiversity is that users start with a topic on their own, and don't have enough people to join. I want to start with a group which commits itself to a certain time schedule and participance and which starts something with a specific end. The last thing is very important because after something has been finished, something new can arise, thereby flexibility and creativity are ensured. A major problem i have with Wikipedia is that articles remain for eternity, which makes long-term conflicts and deterioration due to lack of interest possible. A main issue for me is how to keep the activity running on a certain level of quality. Therefore, communities could be created which have the right structure to be successfull.


 * My personal interests are history, philosophy and politics, but i like oter topics as well, though i have limited knowledge of them.


 * At the moment Wiki-related learning is a topic. Former topics were 'Friedrich Nietzsche', 'John Stuart Mill' and 'Why did the west dominate the world instead of China?'. The present topic has been started on the instigation of Erkan, i started the former three.--Daanschr 22:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What about something like topic:intellectual dialogues, dialogues on literature or topic:dialogues ? Hillgentleman|Talk 02:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestions Hillgentleman.--Daanschr 07:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Setting an agenda
I will change the Thucydides reading group with Erkan, without conforming entirely to the format of this project. I will wait for new participants in the meanwhile, who are willing to start with a subject. If nobody comes, than that would be fine. So, this could be the last message here perhaps, if nobody comes.--Daanschr 10:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see an active "demonstration project" for "study before editing". I have nothing against the Thucydides reading group, but I think it would be useful to try to identify a Wikiversity study area that would be of interest to more Wikipedians. Maybe it is time to "advertise" Wikipedia studies. I think Wikiversity should start a project designed to actively recruit wiki editors who become frustrated by the limitations of Wikipedia. Alternatively, we could pick any popular (and controversial) Wikipedia page where there is a real lack of scholarship and try to improve it...invite Wikipedian's to come over here and help with a scholarly literature review and study project aimed at improving the targeted Wikipedia page.--JWSchmidt 12:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Drawing from the list of atrocious BLPs and related articles that I previously compiled at the express request of Jimbo Wales, I nominate these two for study here:


 * David Berlinski BLP, an utter travesty if I ever saw one.


 * Icons of Evolution, which can't even cite a bibliographic entry correctly without a protracted edit war on how best to write a hatchet job.


 * Moulton 13:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Great to have you both on board! What a name change can do to a project. I agree with John to start picking popular Wikipedia pages, since it is my intention to increase the amount of participants for this projects. evolution theory and Intelligent Design could be a first topic, in which a whole collective of articles can be discussed, including the two that you mention, Moulton. A problem with this topic could be that scientific data is highly controversial. There are many topics on Wikipedia of which the scientific data is not-controversial, but where the articles dedicated to a topic are of a poor quality.--Daanschr 12:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Legally and scientifically there is no controversy about intelligent design. It has been ruled in a court of law to be creationism dressed up to try to get around the separation of church and state. Scientifically it is by definition not science as it can not be experimentally dis-proven. All science ever does is disprove ideas and whatever is left is what might be true. By doing this for centuries science has narrowed down what might be true to some extremely restricted models of the universe. Note the fundamental difference is scientific and religious behavior. Science seeks to find where the models of reality break down. Religion looks for confirmation they are right. Science, being based on evidence, changes with new evidence. Religion based on faith is proud of not changing its opinion even in the face of evidence. (God is testing you; God works in mysterious ways; that's a miracle.) Now note the difference in results. Science is what allows man to go to the moon. Religion gives emotional support to the faithful. Different tools for different jobs. The tool to use to understand biology is science. WAS 4.250 14:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That might be true for physical science, but i don't think it is true for social science. In my view science is about asking questions. Within science, there are disciplines, each dedicated to find answers for specific questions. In mathematics, questions can be indefinitely answered. There are many disciplines within science where mathematics plays a large role, and where questions can be answered with only one good answer. In other disciplines, there are multiple good answers on a single question. In these disciplines, the whole story of the topic, the question and the answers have to be understood in order to figure out which answers are better than others.--Daanschr 14:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Was4.250, can you provide us with a clear statement of which hypothesis of "intelligent design" you are talking about so we can study the claim that "it is by definition not science as it can not be experimentally dis-proven"? I wonder if you are thinking about a straw-man version of an "intelligent design" hypothesis that can be said to be "by definition not science". Study exercise 1: name a Nobel Prize-winning biologist who formulated and published a theory of "intelligent design". Question: if "intelligent design" was good enough for a Nobel Prize-winning biologist to study, are we so sure that it is by definition not science? Study exercise 2: One of the concerns of many scientists who have worked in the area of "intelligent design" is the problem called "irreducible complexity". Why are scientists such as Eugene Koonin stimulated in their scientific research by the problem of irreducible complexity? Is Koonin an anti-science crank because he studies irreducible complexity? If the study of "intelligent design" stimulates the scientific research efforts of working scientists, are we so sure that it is not a useful part of science? --JWSchmidt 14:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I am myself an atheist. The existence of god is impossible, because it can't exist geographically.

The controversiality of this topic already shows itself in this discussion. If this is to be a topic within the format of this project, than we should all try to find literature, give titles of books to each other and have a preliminary discussion within a few months. After a year of reading and discussing we can edit articles on Wikipedia dedicated to this and related topics.

Religion can be very diverse. It doesn't have to be exclusive. There are many christians and muslims who don't take the Bible or the Quran literally, and can therefore be positive about science. Science would be completely inclusive within taoism, perhaps also buddhism.

I agree that Intelligent Design is a way of conservative christians in America to dismantle science and to make christianity cool again instead of science. However spending a lot of time on it can be counterproductive for the defenders of science. I was in america for a day this year in Atlanta. I went to the Fulton Library, a major library in the centre of the city, which showed clear signs of being administered by very conservative christians. There was a desk in an empty room with some 100 books there with the sign 'with our special recommendation' or something like that. 1/3 of the books were on the topic of breaking the code, meaning the code in the novel The Da Vinci Code. 2/3 of the books were on pope Benedict XVI. There were also two books from Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion). My theory about the presence of the last two books is that these books are about god, allthough they deny the existence of god. So these books of atheists could make people christian, especially since the other 98 defended christianity. In a discussion on Intelligent Design, it doesn't matter whether people are against it. The discussion itself gives new attention to god and the Bible.

I come from a continent where atheism is stronger than christianity, so i don't mind to discuss ID, but i do like it if the discussion can be more on trying to understand the kind of arguments writers try to make instead of defending a certain position in a virtual trench warfare.--Daanschr 15:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Daanschr, I have three questions for you about beliefs:


 * Do you believe you have a body?
 * Do you believe your body has a brain?
 * Do you believe your brain has a mind?


 * Moulton 22:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I used to be confused on how consciousness works a couple of years ago. A girlfriend of mine wanted me to follow a course at the faculty of philosophy and there i heard about what Nietzsche wrote on consciousness. This girlfriend was in her first year of philosophy and i was studying at the university, so i was allowed to follow courses at every faculty.

My answer will be very influenced by the philosophy of Nietzsche, but i don't know if i can explain it very well. Body, brain and mind are words that we learn from other humans. Thanks to our communication with others, we learn about our identity. But communication is much more than words, body language is far more important. Words, like body brain and mind, can be used to defend the views of a collective of human beings. These can be very one-sided and self destructive. By focusing continuously on one-sided information in order to keep a group together, we become blind for the many-sided aspects of (nature, Nietzsche would never use this word, i think). Words like body, brain and mind presume to be units, while they are not. A body is part of a larger whole and exists out of smaller parts, the same accounts for the brain and the mind. So, the answer is three times no.--Daanschr 07:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * May I conclude from your answer that you would not be concerned about losing your body, losing your brain, or losing your mind? —Moulton 07:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think he merely means that using those words obscures more than reveals. For example is the dead skin or the bacteria in your gut that creates needed vitamins or dissolved gasses in your blood or a virus within a cell of yours or the oxygen diffusing though your lung tissue part of your body? Are your fingers' nerves, your heart's electrical system, your fight or flight glands and their secretions part of your brain? Are choices made by your liver cells, your stomach nerve cells or your spinal column part of your mind? WAS 4.250 07:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * All you seem to be saying is that these are "fuzzy sets" where the boundary is not "crisp". I long ago advanced from "crisp sets" to "fuzzy sets" in more real-world applications of set theory.  Having said that, let me rephrase my questions to Daanschr to expressly employ the mathematical notion of a fuzzy set.


 * Do you believe there is a fuzzy set corresponding to what is colloquially referred to as "your body"?
 * Do you believe that the above fuzzy set includes a fuzzy subset colloquially reffered to as "your brain"?
 * Do you believe that above fuzzy set is the locus of (perhaps fuzzy) operation of a fuzzy set colloquially known as "your mind"?


 * Moulton 07:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No ;-) --Daanschr 08:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you deny the existence of (a theoretical model of) body, brain, and mind, what, pray tell do you affirm? —Moulton 13:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I only temporarily affirm the existence of something, knowing that another interpretation could be correct as well. I don't affirm anything indefinitely, knowing that too much focus on the details makes it harder to see the wider image.--Daanschr 15:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I get that your degree of belief in any given thesis is a continuously varying function of time, ranging from zero (definitely false) to one (definitely true), with Bayesian updates as evidence and reasoning are weighed in the balance, as Tom Kailath suggested. Do you, at this time, currently have a non-zero degree of belief in the existence of (an internal theoretical model of) your own body, your own brain, and your own mind? —Moulton 10:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. It depends on the definition of the words body, brain and mind and on the story and framework where this words are going to belong to.--Daanschr 10:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your internal (time-evolving) mental model of the concepts bearing the nominative labels, body/brain/mind, are whatever current concepts you are entertaining as the perceived meaning (for you) of those nominative labels. —Moulton 15:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitions according to the Cambridge dictionary:
 * 1) Body:
 * 2) The whole physical structure that forms a person or animal.
 * 3) The main part of a person's or animal's body, without the head, or without the head, arms and legs.
 * 4) A dead person.
 * 5) OLD-FASHIONED a person.
 * 6) The painted metal shell of a vehicle, such as a car or an aircraft.
 * 7) A group of people who have joined together for a particular reason.
 * 8) A large amount of something.
 * 9) FORMAL A body of water is a large area of water, such as a lake.
 * 10) A separate object or mass.
 * 11) A strong or thick quality.
 * 12) The main part of a book, article, etc.
 * 13) The main part of a large building.
 * 14) The body politic: all the people of a particular country under a particular government.
 * 15) Brain:
 * 16) The organ inside the head that controls thought, memory, feelings and activity.
 * 17) Used to refer to intelligence.
 * 18) INFORMAL a very intelligent person, especially one who has spent a lot of time studying.
 * 19) To brain: to hit someone on the head.
 * 20) Brained: having a particular type of brain.
 * 21) Brained: DISAPPROVING used in various phrases to describe someone as stupid or badly organized.
 * 22) Mind:
 * 23) The part of a person that enables a person to think, feel emotions and be aware of things.
 * 24) A very clever person.
 * 25) To mind: to be careful of, or give attention to something.
 * 26) To mind (out): used to tell someone to move or be careful, or to warn them of danger.
 * 27) To mind: to take care of someone or something.
 * 28) (used in questions and negatives) to be annoyed or worried by something.--Daanschr 07:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Step 1
Picking an article or a couple of articles on Wikipedia. My ideas (depending on what other participants want):
 * Intelligent Design
 * History of the World: An article which has hardly any sources and of which the main structure was made by me
 * Some physical science related article: Many articles are hard to understand for non-experts.--Daanschr 07:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Topic has been picked, see front page.--Daanschr 17:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Primary and secondary literature
I would like to make a difference between primary and secondary literature or sources. The primary literature can be put on the front page and have as goal to be read by anyone who joins. Secondary literature or sources can be anything users want to add. The users have their own responsibility to notify the importance and use for these literature or sources. The tricky part is how to determine which literature or sources are good enough to be considered as primary literature. It could be an issue which can result on edit warring. Therefore, i propose to keep the list short and to try to come with sources which can have a certain academic status. If there is too much conflict, than only handbooks can be put on the list.--Daanschr 17:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

With primary and secondary literature, i don't mean the difference between sources (primary) and analysis of sources (secondary). It can be better described as literature on the reading list, or literature outside the reading list.--Daanschr 17:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent developments
Jimbo Wales asked to block Moulton. This can have an effect on this project. Since Moulton is one of the main contributors at the moment. I propose to wait for a month to see how things will develop.--Daanschr 16:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

We could continue with the precent topic, but i still haven't got a job and want to take care of that first.--Daanschr 19:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)