|WikiProject Education||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
I removed this section from the article, which is simply an opinion piece touting the supposed (but unsubstantiated) advantages of Wikipedia. The last two sentences are priceless pieces of POV. (I've bolded the funniest bit for your reading pleasure -- professional scholars, you see, apparently overlook the really important stuff that we here at Wikipedia pay attention to, like, say, Digivolution.)
- "The Wikipedia can be construed as a grand experiment in amateur scholarship, designed to determine whether the joint efforts of a largely nonprofessional scholarly community can achieve a product of sufficiently high quality to count as worthwhile. The volunteer editorial staff of the Wikipedia almost certainly suffers in comparison with professional scholars in terms of training, reading background, and experience. Yet it has some compensating advantages. Professional scholars often emphasize unimportant detail, perhaps as a way of asserting their credentials, whereas an outsider may be in a better position to emphasize what is most important. Moreover, the Wikipedia is jointly and continually authored and thus has better chances of improving over time."
Perhaps Wikipedia merits mention in an article like this, but probably without the puerile propagandistic platitudes. --Kevin Myers 15:14, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
- So, why all the sarcasm and mockery? The passage was meant to be balanced, not propagandistic. In particular, the comment about professional scholars missing the forest for the trees is based on hundreds of hours of reading the Britannica--try it and you will see.
- Editor KM needs to work on his Wiki-courtesy. Opus33 15:48, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
- I apologize for the sarcasm. We can refactor this page to remove it if you like. However, I do believe that the section I deleted was pretentious and arrogant, so I was fighting fire with fire. In the future, I'll try harder to play nice.
- You say, "the comment about professional scholars missing the forest for the trees is based on hundreds of hours of reading the Britannica." I think this assertion of yours unquestionably violates the Wikipedia policy of no original research, because you've inserted your own assessment based on your own reading. Wikipedia isn't supposed to the place for that sort of editorializing, although a minority of Wikipedians (in my assessment) actually take this policy to heart. --Kevin Myers 19:10, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
This section reads like pure original research: it's an entirely new synthetic argument about what scholars think and do. This badly needs to be rewritten based on some actual cited sources (not just to have sources provided for its claims, I think, but a real re-working of what it says based on what has been published on this topic). -- Rbellin|Talk 19:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
No citations in an article about the scholarly method
How droll. --184.108.40.206 07:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Quite. It's poor scholarship. —Ashley Y 10:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Just a cursory search for some citations, I found one good resource:
- Douglass H. Thomson, Scholarly Method: Four Branches (Georgia Southern University) suggests the scholarly method consists of (1) Textual Criticism; (2) Authorship / Attribution; (3) Source Study; (4) Reception and Reputation
- Although I also discovered people use the "scholarly method" as a synonym for the Scholastic Method, which may or may not be relevant...difficult to say, since the article is ambiguous...
Redirecting Scholar to Scholarly_method#Scholars
I am redirecting Scholar to Scholarly_method#Scholars because there are discussions that Scholar should redirect to Wiktionary. There is not enough information for a separate article for Scholar. I have added a template box for Wiktionary for Scholar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
This action by an anonymous editor, though well-intended, should probably have been submitted first as a proposal, for consideration by a larger body of editors, which this article seems to lack. I am certainly no authority on scholarship and the scholarly method, but "being bold" does sometimes have ill consequences, which seems to be the present case. Rags (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
One of the best parts of wikipedia is on pages about animals or religion or royal families or many things like electronics (processors even) there are tables (this means the fact that much related information is available is displayed as important as the information itself) of links to other stuff like genus and category relatives. I have spent hours flicking these links. Around here it seems to say 'Category? Youre looking for words that sound alike arent you?!?' Or 'Let's direct it in such a way as not very much is left because this is not a wiktionary you know!?!' but the fact is there is big articles about knowledge and its history and its interesting as well as factual. Scholasticism is the daddy of scholarly method and Scholarly method#Scholarly procedure is a paradox Birthday paradox
! No its not !! What is this !?! A wiktionary?!?!
WHAT IS IT???
What the ... is a scholar, are scholars? Where is it really explained? It's used so widely throughout the wikipedia - even in this article - but where is it really explained, what it is, what they mean by it, when they use this word? Professors, students, academics, maybe also non academics, researchers, etc.; all of the above and others, or non of the above? --Alien4 (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted content of this article
Yes, Action required.
The 1st link provided in the references, is from a nursing perspective, this isn't a broad description. Would it be possible to have a reference from a broader point of view?Aidar24 (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
No suggestions yet, but I think this page should be greatly expanded. I'm shocked at how little there is here. I'm also not sure at all that this should redirect to "Scholarly method" rather than "Scholar."Kingshowman (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman
Also, whoa, whoa, whoa on the suggestion at the top of the article that "for scholarly individuals, see intellectual or scientist." By no means are the three terms equivalents as implied.Kingshowman (talk) 04:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman
Oy vey- this page needs HELP
First of all, the title of the page unambiguously should not be "scholarly method." It should either be "scholar" or "scholarship. And whoved equated "scholars" with "intellectuals" or "scientists" is demonstrably wrong: there are public intellectuals like political figures or journalists whom are quite obviously not scholars; and surely we can all agree that all scientists are scholars but not all scholars are scientists. So the title of the page and the re-directs are in desperate need of change since they are demonstrably wrong. Kingshowman (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Kingshowman (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, I'm not an expert in Aquinas or medieval thought, but how can this article exist without mention of Scholasticism? This article is beridden with issues and omissions someone should correct. It seems unfortunate to have such an important article in such terrible shape. Kingshowman (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Kingshowman (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps a clearer example of why "Scholars" and "Intellectuals" are by no means equivalent, and scholar should never re-direct to Intellectual:
Sociologically, doctors and lawyers are unequivocally "intellectuals", but quite obviously are not "scholars." Scholar, intellectual, scientist are all completely different terms.
Likewise, we don't call the scholar of Medieval Literature a "Scientist" and redirecting people who are looking for information on what "Scholars" are to the "Scientist" page is going to fill their heads with false knowledge.Kingshowman (talk)Kingshowman — Preceding undated comment added 01:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)