There’s a very reasonable question I get asked a lot, which follows some version of:
What does this site offer that sites like Wikipedia and Quora don’t?
Let’s start by saying that I love Wikipedia and Quora, and some other sites that complement them and what we do here. I spend a lot of time on both of them.
Wikipedia and Quora have very different structures because they are designed to do somewhat different things. Form follows function, as the architects teach. Other sites, such as Facebook and Reddit also share knowledge, experience and opinions in different ways.
This site is focussed on spreading wisdom. That’s somewhat different to knowledge, understanding or experience, although there is clearly connection and overlap, as discussed here.
Fine - so what’s different about the way this site is structured and what advantages does it have?
I’ll answer that in two seperate Blog articles because Wikipedia and Quora are very different.
Wikipedia is a fantastic knowledge sharing site and is one of the best things that has come out of the digital age and the internet. It in now one of the great wealths of mankind. Celestial Koan links to it from this site frequently. Wikipedia is seen as being complementary to the sharing of wisdom of this site.
That’s because wisdom requires knowledge as one of its components. You can’t be wise and ignorant. You can, however, be very knowledgeable but not particularly wise. This is particularly true if one’s knowledge is mostly within a limited specialist area of knowledge, a domain of expertise.
Wikipedia is now quite mature. It has largely defined its core structure, and is very clear on its function. It is a site for sharing knowledge. It isn’t designed to share data, experience, opinions, or wisdom. It does share quite a lot of information and understanding, because these are two areas in the hierarchy which abound knowledge closely. Refer What’s The Difference Between Facts, Knowledge, Understanding and Wisdom? Link.
It’s very clear from the structure of Wikipedia that it isn’t a site for disseminating opinions. It isn’t concerned with news and current affairs. It doesn’t adopt particular viewpoints on anything. Wikipedia’s system of review, verification and supporting references is intended to reduce mere opinions, and to emphasise facts derived from the works of experts and verified by experts wherever possible.
Wikipedia’s navigation, coupled with Google and similar internet search algorithms, make it very easy to find relevant knowledge in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is thoroughly categorised, cross referenced and interlinked. It’s still not perfect. I read the whole Wikipedia entry for radioactive decay, here, and it contains no link or reference to Schrodinger’s Cat, here. This is a rare example. Cataloging and cross referencing knowledge is extremely difficult and Wikipedia generally does it very well indeed.
Wikipedia also maintains consistency across the site in terms of spelling, definitions, and categorisation. Wikipedia is structured to be a community sourced and resourced repository for holding and disseminating widespread knowledge, and it does so excellently.
Celestial Koan isn’t trying to disseminate knowledge. This site is focussed on disseminating wisdom. Certainly there is some overlap at the edges with Wikipedia, but it’s relatively limited.
Wikipedia covers a huge breadth of knowledge, including such things as people, places, books, films, and so on. This site is unconcerned about such matters unless they directly relate to the subject of Wisdom. The list of things this site is not concerned with can be found here. It’s a long list.
So the first obvious difference is that this site is much much smaller than Wikipedia. As such it requires far less support and maintenance. It’s a focussed specialist site. Rotten Tomatoes is a specialist site for reviewing movies and TV entertainment. On that specialist topic it sometimes proves to be a better source than Wikipedia, depending upon what you are seeking. Wikipedia commonly quotes the Rotten Tomatoes opinion rating.
Wikipedia does not have a question and answer format. Wikipedia has no blog. If you want the answer to something in Wikipedia you have to work out what’s relevant to the question and go and look it up. But sometimes the issue is, what is relevant to the question. If you are seeking to understand the various scientific and religious theories / beliefs regarding the creation of the universe or the beginning of life, then one can ask a single question on Quora. In Wikipedia you are in for a very long journey through religions, creation myths, Big Bang theory, Abiogenesis and the rest. It’s fascinating. It will give you lots of information and knowledge. It will provide copious references. And it will take you many many hours of reading and study. At the end of which time you may have the beginnings of a lot of knowledge, but you will still largely have to work out the answer for yourself.
This site considers such questions to be its bread and butter. The information is in The Oracle. The Blog may directly answer a question you pose. Discussion of the various differing perspectives and commentary upon their relative strengths, weaknesses and merits are included.
The topic of love is a complex and vexatious one. It’s a topic upon which much wisdom is available and sought. I’ve written a whole book on the subject of loving oneself properly. Wikipedia’s offering on the topic is here. It’s a single very limited page which offers a little knowledge and no wisdom. That’s appropriate for Wikipedia. By contrast, this site complements my book on the topic and contains many of its wisdoms, and some important extracts from it.
And this site allows others to contribute their wisdoms and comments too. It’s quite difficult to contribute casually to Wikipedia. Their Quality Assurance is excellent, but at the cost of making it very difficult for casual contributors.