Philosophy@Utah State

Home » Uncategorized » A plea for some crowd-sourcing, which might be fun

A plea for some crowd-sourcing, which might be fun

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 100 other followers

Old Main, USU

T-shirts


You need a Philosophy T-shirt! For more information, please click here.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

* Interested in presenting a paper at an UNDERGRADUATE PHILOSOPHY CONFERENCE or publishing in an UNDERGRADUATE PHILOSOPHY JOURNAL? You should consider it! To see what options are available, both in state and out of state, click here.

PHILOSOPHY BOWLING RESULTS

• Is the world eternal? YES
• Do humans have contra-causal free will (i.e., can humans do otherwise)? NO
• Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? YES
• Do humans have souls? YES
• Are there natural rights? YES
• Is it morally permissible to eat meat? NO
• Is the unexamined life worth living? NO
• Is truth subjectivity? YES
• Is virtue necessary for happiness? YES
• Can a computer have a mind? YES
• Can humans know reality as it is in itself? YES
• Is hell other people? YES
• Can art be created accidentally? NO
• Can we change the past? NO
• Are numbers real? NO
• Is it always better to know the truth? YES

Blog Stats

  • 193,050 hits

I have been researching the history of encyclopedias. Producing an encyclopedia involves a number of obstacles, one of which is the decision of what to include: you want the encyclopedia to cover everything, but obviously it can’t, so you have to choose what is important enough to merit inclusion. (The Encyclopedia Brittanica, for instance, has an entry for DARWIN, CHARLES, but it doesn’t include Darwin’s shoe size or what he ate for breakfast on his 42nd birthday, etc.) But now, with Wikipedia, there is no shortage of space, and there can be articles on pretty much everything, though editors still make calls about what merits inclusion and what doesn’t. (There isn’t an article on me, for example {sniff}.) Still, there are plenty of articles on smaller or more trivial matters that one wouldn’t expect to find in a traditional encyclopedia. So, for example, check out this lengthy article on SHOE SIZE.

I’ll bet that you can find other surprising entries – so here’s my plea for some crowd-sourcing: What is the most trivial entry you can find on Wikipedia? Just leave it as a comment to this post.

Advertisements

3 Comments

  1. Vince Eccles says:

    Or another sentence in common usage:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_while_John_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_a_better_effect_on_the_teacher

    Trying to follow these sentences may be a preventive practice against dementia.

    Like

  2. Huenemann says:

    Thanks, Vince! Those are two gems!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: