Talk:Democratization of knowledge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Fix don't delete[edit]

I think deleting this page may be a little rash - this topic can be considered a notable but recent phenomenon - one worth discussing. Rather than deleting this article immediately I bid you to attempt to revise it; don't shoot down new concepts based on your personal opinions, please.

Scubasteve467 (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


I believe democratization simply means "making something (in this case sources of knowledge I.e. books) available to the common, or average, person." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacqmact (talkcontribs) 13:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Some Sources[edit]

http://www.stevedenning.com/democratization_knowledge.html

http://lisaneal.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/the-democratization-of-health-knowledge-by-steve-denning-guest-contributor/

http://ebook30.com/study/politics/103809/democratization-of-expertise-exploring-novel-forms-of-scientific-advice-in-political-decision-making.html

http://www.gjc.it/2009/category/tag-cloud/shared-knowledge

Even in work experience they ask that in some sense.

http://www.pili.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40125&Itemid=179

http://growingbolder.com/obj/print.php?objId=435961


I agree with the other poster, it is a recent phenomenon and rather than having it deleted, it should be debated and made better rather than deleted. A cursory googling gives too many results, almost over 600,000 so that alone is able to say that the phenomenon/term is here to say. Shirishag75 (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Lies[edit]

Ain´t no democratization of knowledge because http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy all lies and propaganda misinformation here --DerAkademiker (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Neologism?[edit]

I'm taking down the Neologism flag since this is definately a term that is used, even if it's rather rare. The subject deserves expansion more than anything, and less of a focus on wikipedia so that the page appears less biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGrandIgloo (talkcontribs) 16:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"Democratization" in this context is totally meaningless[edit]

Please make sure you know what words mean before you create articles with ghibberish words. "Democratization" is the process of turning into 'government by the people' - see etymology of 'democracy'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.156.126.230 (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I did; it means more than that. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

It is rampantly bad English, because it is intrinsically meaningless. Whether it has acquired that meaning by being misunderstood by the uneducated masses cannot and should not be the standard for an encyclopedia. Look at the constituent parts of the word! It cannot have the meaning it has been assigned, it is impossible and wrong. Kratia will have its meaning regardless of what the Merriam-Webster says. This is a case of common sense against ignorance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.156.126.230 (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Words often acquire more meanings as time passes; that is part of the standard evolution of language. That said, this isn't the forum to debate the English language. You are entitled to your opinion. You are free to start a standard Articles for Deletion discussion if you wish, but I would advise you against it, as I don't think it would be successful, at least on the grounds you cite. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I would recommend that you yourself start a standard Articles for Deletion discussion, because you would do so in the interest of the broader enlightenment of the common people who are dumbed down by exactly this type of misleading, obfuscating information. If you do not do this you position yourself as an enemy of enlightenment and clarity of discourse, as a perpetuator of ignorance, rather than as a reasonable human being. I do not care personally, but I state openly that it you disgrace yourself by placing yourself in the way of informed measures to improve obvious deficiencies for the benefit of all. If the word 'albus' were to acquire popularly the meaning 'black' that would be ghibberish and evidence of the ignorance of the populace, and would not be less ghibberish because it is in an online dictionary. The same is the case with the use of the word 'democratization' in this context. But then again, who needs real enlightenment when one can substitute one's own draped rampant ignorance for knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.156.126.230 (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not going to start a deletion discussion, as I don't agree with your view on this matter and thus see no reason to delete it. If you want this to go away, you need to do the work- though again, I think it unlikely to succeed. Based on your statement, it doesn't sound like Wikipedia is a website compatible with your views. 331dot (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

On n'a jamais prétendu éclairer les cordonniers et les servantes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.156.126.230 (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)