However, I would say that the most unpleasant thing about contributing to wikipedia is the need to constantly remain alert for one’s contributed material being “helpfully modified” by amateurs. Of course you can revert such changes if they are mistaken and explain why to their authors, but this soon gets to be a drag, like explaining what you do all day to an intelligent and articulate taxi driver.

And that’s not even taking into account the cranks, or the guy with a philosophy degree who keeps insisting that “consciousness” really means the same as “conscience”.

Still, it’s a worthy project. Maybe if more academics contributed it wouldn’t be so painful.

“Knowledge can also be described as a psychological state, since in a strict sense there can never be a posteriori knowledge proper (see relativism). Much of the disagreement about “proofs” of God’s existence is due to different conceptions not only of the term “God” but also the terms “proof”, “truth” and “knowledge”. Religious belief from revelation or enlightenment (satori) falls in the second, a priori class of “knowledge”.”

- From the Wikipedia page on the existence of God.

I also never knew that:

-The moral argument for the existence of God should be classed as an empirical argument. – The historical argument for the divinity of Jesus is to be classed as a subjective argument. – The no reason argument is empirical. – It’s okay to cite internet cranks as philosophical authorities.