Wikipedia, if it were run by academic experts, would look like this

September 7, 2010 BY CYNTHIA HAVEN, Stanford University

( -- Students, here's an Internet site you can footnote. The entries in the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy are written by leading experts and vetted by others before they appear. From quantum mechanics to "Human/Non-Human Chimeras," these articles, based on serious research, attract 700,000 visits per week.

It's September, and as school resumes, so does the wrangling between students and teachers across the country over the reliability of Wikipedia and other Internet sources as fodder for footnotes in research papers.

The debate has been going on for years. When philosopher Larry Sanger left Wikipedia - the project he co-founded - he said its "anti-elitism" was the root of its shortcomings. He said that because pretty much anyone could write anything, expertise was mistrusted and those committed to mayhem or propaganda could too easily dominate the medium.

But he did recommend an online alternative: the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

The encyclopedia, written and edited by academic experts from Stanford and elsewhere, has the academic muscle that educators seek in footnotes, said Edward Zalta, the principal editor and senior research scholar at the Center for the Study of Language and Information

Stanford's dynamic reference work was a wunderkind of the Internet when it launched in 1995, three years before Google and six years before Wikipedia. It has over 700,000 visits per week, a big number for an academic site.

Some saw the idea as a stroke of genius. Zalta saw it as an inevitability. Luck or ingenuity, it's a concept that may be revolutionizing the way scholars do business. The is a fully vetted, refereed reference work, updated regularly, that explains the dynamic world of philosophy.

Think the world of philosophy is old and fusty, exhaling the dust of Aristotle and Kant? Think again.

Philosophy as a dynamic discipline

"A country changes its laws about voluntary euthanasia. There are new discoveries in logic. New political theories crop up. Research is continuing about the definitions of life and death," said Zalta. "Moreover, there are new developments in other fields - the philosophy of physics, the meaning of the theory of quantum mechanics."

Check the online encyclopedia's entry on "Human/Non-Human Chimeras" for a cutting-edge discussion: "There's a moral question for you - humans with pig or baboon hearts. What's the ethics of that?" asked Zalta. "We've tried to organize a profession - the profession of philosophers - to help us stay on top of this explosion of information."

The online encyclopedia now has over 1,200 entries, with nearly 1,400 authors writing about consciousness, torture, euthanasia and children's rights as well as the philosophy of biology, the philosophy of mathematics and other topics.

Type the words "quantum mechanics" into . Out of the 10.1 million results, the first listing cites Wikipedia. The second cites the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. But while virtually anyone can contribute to Wikipedia and alter the text, 120 leading philosophers from around the world oversee contributions to the Stanford project, and its advisory board is the Stanford Department of Philosophy. No one can alter text without passing through several layers of approval.

Back to that quantum mechanics entry. Zalta noted all the hyperlinked blue text in the Wikipedia version - it's like those cookbooks where the recipes look straightforward, until you realize that the list of ingredients includes recipes on other pages. A Wikipedia article may be impossible to comprehend without an awful lot of clicking.

"You can't just read it all the way through, you have to go zigzagging," said Zalta. "The entries are not self-contained."

On the Stanford site, by contrast, "You don't have to go off and read anything else. You just have to study."

'Our model is authoritative'

"Our model is authoritative," said Zalta. "Their model is one an academic isn't going to be attracted to. If you are a young academic, who might spend six months preparing a great article on Thomas Aquinas, you're not going to publish in a place where anyone can come along and change this."

Each site embodies a different ethos as well. Wikipedia is the Internet version of democracy at work. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is academia becoming airborne.

Philosophy Professor John Perry, then director of Stanford's Center for the Study of Language and Information, didn't have anything quite so elaborate in mind when he approached Zalta in the early 1990s. He was simply pursuing an office philosophy of his own: He thought all his researchers should be involved in some project that was "potentially fundable" and he tried to encourage projects "that supplemented our very theoretical bent with ones that deal with the interface to information, especially the new phenomenon of the Internet and Web."

"I suggested an Internet-based dictionary of philosophy. My idea was very vague," said Perry, the Henry Waldgrave Stuart Professor of Philosophy, Emeritus. "It seemed that the Routledge Encyclopedia [another encyclopedia of philosophy], which was just being developed, was going to be extremely expensive and inaccessible to many parts of the general public. It seemed that the Internet would allow for connections from articles to bibliographies and other research sites."

Over the years, the project has received over $1 million from the National Endowment for the Humanities and over half a million dollars from the National Science Foundation's division for Information and Intelligent Systems.

Since 2003, the program has looked beyond grants and toward creating its own endowment - a move that was hailed last year by Ithaka, a group that studies academic use of digital technologies, as one of a dozen exemplary models for "sustainability strategies" in the Internet world. To date, it has raised three-quarters of its planned $4.125 million endowment.

That's surprising, considering the online empire is run by less than two full-time people. Zalta works 50 percent time on the encyclopedia; for the rest of his time, he returns to his academic specialty, the rarified philosophical atmosphere of logic and metaphysics.

Meanwhile, his more immediate legacy is that he's used technology to solve a problem that stumped Denis Diderot when his first Encyclopédie was revised and supplemented in the mid-18th century: By the time it's on paper, it's already outdated.

"It's the natural thing to do," Zalta said. "I'm surprised no one is doing it for the other disciplines."

Explore further: Microsoft closing Encarta online encyclopedia

Related Stories

Google donates $2 million to support Wikipedia

February 17, 2010

(AP) -- Google Inc., the Internet's most profitable company, is giving $2 million to support Wikipedia, a volunteer-driven reference tool that has emerged as one of the Web's most-read sites.

Wikipedia operator gets $500,000 foundation grant

August 21, 2009

(AP) -- The nonprofit organization that operates the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia has received a $500,000 grant from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation to expand its work bringing free educational content ...

Recommended for you

EPA adviser is promoting harmful ideas, scientists say

March 22, 2019

The Trump administration's reliance on industry-funded environmental specialists is again coming under fire, this time by researchers who say that Louis Anthony "Tony" Cox Jr., who leads a key Environmental Protection Agency ...

Coffee-based colloids for direct solar absorption

March 22, 2019

Solar energy is one of the most promising resources to help reduce fossil fuel consumption and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions to power a sustainable future. Devices presently in use to convert solar energy into thermal ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

3.5 / 5 (6) Sep 07, 2010
"You can't just read it all the way through, you have to go zigzagging," said Zalta. "The entries are not self-contained."

On the Stanford site, by contrast, "You don't have to go off and read anything else. You just have to study."

Isn't the very essence of both hypertext and the WWW, that you read stuff, and there are links to explanations and things to see. If everything is on a single page, then I don't have a mechanism to easily skip the parts I don't need to read.

As a case in point, http://plato.stan...ousness/ uses 17,808 words to explain that they don't have the faintest clue as to what consciousness is. Study, indeed, not read.

I have seen Wikipedia compared to dead-tree encyclopedias, and it had a similar number of errors. Not bad.

Of course, the real value of the SEP articles are that after reading a particular one, you can be reasonably sure it has covered most of what is relevant for the subject.
1.7 / 5 (3) Sep 07, 2010
gwrede hits the nail. Try reading that consciousness article--frustration at wanting to click through and understand ideas and people it mentions.

This makes it a bad source of information. Its discussion of cognition as relevant to consciousness, for example, is banal -- only links would give a reader the depth to explore how cognition relates to consciousness. Wikipedia has weaknesses -- its editors refused recently to create an article on Steven Slater the flight attendant as insufficiently notable-- but it allows study to be an information journey not an information destination.
Sep 13, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.