I've always found it odd that when I go to Wikipedia for a philosophical definition, I get the boiled-down community college/Cliff's notes summary of the idea. But when I go to Wikipedia for video game or indie rock information, it's literally the best source of information on earth.
There's something similar in internet forums... it's the revenge of those who don't have degrees, don't own companies, and don't have public prestige. By pretending that they do, and banding together, they can appear to be experts and even confuse others into thinking that.
It's a lot like Hollywood, don't you think? "This is important because we made a movie about it, because we think it's important." What relevance does Mississippi Burning
have toward global warming? Or Sophie's Choice
toward the continued decline of humanity's intelligence? Or Fast Times at Ridgemont High
toward the ongoing boredom slope of human relations? Non-issues trumpeted as issues!
People in internet forums do a lot of trumpeting, but I think it's time we get back to resources verified over time by the best minds among us. We don't want to be Wikipedia, because wikipedia is a trend like funk metal. We want to be the primary resource.
Here are some good starters:Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy
- cost of 2 bad black metal CDsStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- freeInternet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Other things I found:Philosophy of Mind Dictionary
- takes submissions, for the wikiminded.Dictionary of Philosophy
- good focus on ancients.