[Bauder creates the article]
“The ultimate nature of things considered as a philisophical [sic] question and The more or less naive world view of a person which is internalized from one's parents and peers. One's reality includes one's culture, social status and sense of what is right and wrong. Reality is socially constructed. Every individual does not sui generis internalize the external world but absorbs from others the social constructs which make up a culture. One's sense of what is "real" may at times differ from what acually is which is sure to make life interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ity&oldid=27840 12:13, 11 March 2002.

“[Reality] is one of the broadest of topics, and this very broadness lends itself to a wide variety of theorizing and speculation about the topic." seems to belong here in talk rather than in the article. User:Fredbauder

Why do you say that? I think it's one of the most notable things one can say about the concept of reality. Fred, you seem to be miffed at my removal of the original article. However, I explained point by point what I thought was wrong with it. If you disagree, then don't insinuate that I'm being unfair or unreasonable: answer my arguments and assertions. --Larry Sanger

Of course, I'm miffed, you have deleted a lot of reasonably good stuff and replaced it with material that is not as good. Describing your definition as a tauntology [sic] adds nothing; just a bad joke. So what is reality? What is real? If you can't find some reasonable definition it need to be replaced with something better. User:Fredbauder

I'm sorry you're miffed. But I cannot apologize for replacing what I thought was completely substandard with something that philosophers might recognize as the beginning of an actual attempt to write an article on this subject. It would be helpful if you would make an attempt actually to articulate what you think is wrong with my objections, rather than simply declare that the earlier version was better. Obviously, I strongly disagree with your assessment. --Larry Sanger

I think I've figured out the problem. Philosophy itself is a part of culture. Necessarily any discussion of reality within a philosophical context is socially constructed knowlege. The material which you, Larry, believe should be the body of the article is properly a part of the article, perhaps on the same page under a subheading "Reality as considered by philosophy", perhaps as a seperate article reality (philosophy). I find myself be very unsure of the status of "reality" as a concept within contemporary (2002) philosophy. Would it be used or avoided? Fredbauder 10:49 Oct 15, 2002 (UTC)

That's an intriguing suggestion, Fred, but I am skeptical. Philosophy considers the concept of reality, and it's the philosophers who are the experts, if anybody is an expert, about the concept. As I argued above and in the article, and as you have chosen to ignore (or maybe I just didn't make it clear enough somehow), it's ridiculous to expect an article about reality to treat every aspect of reality. That's what an encyclopedia does. (We could make reality the main page of Wikipedia, I suppose!) Given that the article about reality limits itself to explaining competing theories about the concept of reality, and given that philosophers are the experts about that, then I guess it does follow that the article should primarily concern philosophical theories, but I imagine also that theologians (particularly those with a philosophical bent) have written seriously about it.

The concept you are using in the above paragraph is not reality but knowlege. An encyclopedia contains knowledge not reality. BTW, that's where general semantics comes in and their slogan "The map is not the territory"Fredbauder 16:13 Oct 15, 2002 (UTC)

"The concept you you are using in the above paragraph is not reality but knowlege." Fred, that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me. --LMS

That's a problem. You don't seem to understand the basics of the topic yet you insist in being editor in chief. Fredbauder

I give up. I do not insist on being editor-in-chief, and the reason I don't understand what you said is that it didn't make any sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ty&oldid=367080 13:03, 18 October 2002

Sanger's POV is just a variation of Randroid “Objectivism”, though he knows a little better than to come right out and say it, and that brand of incredibly naive philosophy remains one of the biggest cracks in the philosophical foundation of all his projects.

Jon Awbrey

tauntology [sic] User:Fredbauder

Sanger's POV is just a variation of Randroid “Objectivism”, though he knows a little better than to come right out and say it, and that brand of incredibly naive philosophy remains one of the biggest cracks in the philosophical foundation of all his projects.

Jon Awbrey

Rand, remember, was of the opinion that the United States, and indeed the border between Nevada and California, existed in objective reality (were objectively "facts") inasmuch as a bunch of people had objectively "agreed" to their "existence." In other words, she was confused

Yet in the same place he objects to having any material on Rand, for all the right reasons. And why should it matter anyway? Sanger always gives clear and cogent and educated arguments. What more do you want?

I'm not sure who is closer to Rand in the above exchange.

I didn't say anything about who was more philosophically naive — I merely said that Wikipedia and Citizendium were founded on the same fundamentally naive philosophy. Indeed, Sanger became even more fundamentalist about it when he founded Citizendium. He quickly alienated everyone who had any kind of critical perspective on the project and who sought to learn from the whole spectrum of mistakes made by Wikipedia. Like all true Wikipediots, he proved simply unable or unwilling to learn from other people's experience.