Talk:Knowledge/Archive 2

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Knowledge/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 17:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I've been meaning to take on one of your GA nominations for a while. Given the nature of this article, I'm going to pay special attention to criteria 1a and 3, and I expect to work through the article and its sources over the next few days before posting the initial review. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello Thebiguglyalien and thanks for taking the time to review this article. I'll try to be responsive and reply to your comments in a timely manner. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Phlsph7: I've posted most of the initial review. I'm almost finished with criterion 2, but I want to go over the sourcing a little more and figured there was no need to keep you waiting in the meantime (the gist of criterion 2 will likely be the limited use of secondary sources and a few minor isolated issues). There are a lot of notes and suggestions here; consider that an effect of the article's scope rather than any failure to approach the GA criteria. Given said scope, I'm not going to expect everything to get addressed at once, so take your time. And disclaimer, I know you personally didn't write some of these things I'm critiquing, but I'm directing the comments at you for the sake of simplicity. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed and sensible comments. I'll work through them and post some replies as I go along. I'll ping you when I think that all the main issues have been solved. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: I think I've addressed all the main points by now. For most, I've implemented them directly in the article. For some, I've added comments here and you have already responded to them except for the ones I just added now. It might be good if you could take a look to see if these implementations were roughly what you had in mind and if I missed some important points. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The main thing I'm looking at right now is the use of examples. Some of them are arguably original research, and there are places where the inline citations are set after them so that it looks like they come from a source when they don't. The other major issue is the religion section. It's still very long with a lot of very detailed information. Unless there's a good reason not to, I think it would be better to move the information about specific religions to an appropriate sub-article. This section is best left addressing the broader intersection of religion and knowledge rather than the intersection of specific religions with knowledge. It might also be worth looking through the article for a quick check on formatting: see if there are any long paragraphs that can be split, and see if there are any long sections that can be better organized with subheadings (though it may very well be the case that there's no efficient way to do this). In the meantime, I'll give the article one more read-over for clarity and flow. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you point out which examples you have in mind? I had a look at the first few concrete examples I could find. The bird-example is found in Klein 1998. The "2 + 2 = 4" example is found in Hetherington 2022. The Canberra example is not found in the sources but this seems to be rather trivial and uncontroversial. It could be replaced with things like "knowledge that kangaroos hop, knowledge that koalas sleep most of the time, knowledge that kookaburras cackle". Or for knowledge-who, the source doesn't mention John F. Kennedy but "knowing who is due to visit". Is that what you had in mind with original research? Phlsph7 (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I'm referring to. It seems to be a gray area in terms of original research. I think the ideal usage would be to have each example attributed to a source, but it's difficult to say how much that's required and how much it can be deviated from. The

original research noticeboard might be helpful if we decide that we need more clarification in this area. Thebiguglyalien (talk

) 18:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

You are right that the policy is not explicit on how to understand such cases. I've followed your suggestions and asked the question at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Modifying_and_making_up_examples. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I've adjusted various of the examples used. As for the placement of references: I don't think that a reference after a specific example or claim implies that this specific example or claim is found in the source. Instead, it only implies that the source supports this example or claim. For example, the adjusted knowledge-who example about the dinner is supported by Hetherington 2022 even though this source does not talk about a dinner. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

As for the religion section, I think it should mention the main religions but maybe the amount of detail could be further reduced. Especially Buddhism and Hinduism matter here since knowledge plays such a central role in them. I would remove the paragraph on the Qabalah since this is clearly a

Biogeographist before since they were involved in the recent discussion on it. Phlsph7 (talk

) 18:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

It definitely needs some condensing. One option would be to talk more about how knowledge intersects with

Dharmic religion, and then any supporting details can be added as necessary. And as I said below, this information doesn't necessarily have to be deleted; this is the sort of thing that can be moved to a child article. Thebiguglyalien (talk

) 18:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I would remove the paragraph on

Biogeographist (talk

) 02:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. It seems the three of us are in agreement so I removed that paragraph. I also removed various other details on the individual religions. I hope this works as a compromise. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I've tried to split some more paragraphs but, to my eyes, their length looks fine. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Phlsph7: I think that's everything! This is a hell of a first good article. In case you weren't aware (or just a reminder if you were), this GA is eligible for the award at Wikipedia:Reward board#Improve Level 2 Vital Articles to Good Article status. Given the hours you've put into this and the massive improvement in the article since you began nearly a year ago, you've definitely earned it. I'll go ahead and mark this review as passed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Well-written

General:

• Long paragraphs make complex articles like this more difficult to read. I broke up one of them myself, but it's worth keeping an eye out for.
• Another thing to keep an eye on is that the tone of the article seems a bit off. It's not a serious issue, but at a few points it kind of feels like I'm reading a scientific journal instead of a summary of scientific journals. Extra focus should be put on summarizing the information that exists and providing clear encyclopedia-style descriptions of each topic as soon as it's introduced or a new section starts. The number of original/arbitrary examples might also be playing into this.
• Avoid first-person pronouns: we and us should be edited out unless they're part of a direct quote.
• There are a few phrases to the effect of "some philosophers believe", which should probably be clarified or removed.

I've tried to solve this issue through reformulations or by giving examples but I'm not sure that it's sufficient. In many cases, the problem is that the academic discourse on the topic is huge and opinions are divided. The easiest way to express this without giving undue weight to a few specific philosophers is to say: some claim this, others claim that. This is also how many reliable sources handle the issue, like the following ones I came across while dealing with this issue: [7]^[a], [8]^[b], [9]^[c], and [10]^[d] Phlsph7 (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I realize that especially with these general points, there's not always going to be a perfect way to do it. Consider these to be "try to move toward this" advice rather than a specific list of things that needs to be corrected. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• I've highlighted the most important ones below, but as a rule try to only use jargon if it's directly relevant. And when it is used, define it immediately for the reader. We can assume that the reader has some basic philosophical training for articles like epistemic modal logic, but something as simple as "Knowledge" needs to be accessible to the layman as much as possible.

Lead:

• The opening sentence is less than ideal. I've read the relevant talk page discussion, and while "is often understood as" is a tolerable compromise, I think a better one can be found. If I were to rewrite it, I would make the first sentence very broad and then describe the caveats in the next sentences (summarizing the definitions section in the process). Maybe something as simple as "Knowledge is a state of awareness or familiarity." I admit that's also not perfect, but it's an approach worth considering.
• The first paragraph goes into a lot of detail. We don't need to describe the details of arguments as much as just state what the arguments are.
• Is there a reason why the second paragraph talks about foundationalists and coherentists but not infinitists?

Definitions:

• cognitive success or an epistemic contact could be clarified.
• the general characteristics of knowledge listed above – avoid self-referential phrases when possible. The sentence should still make sense if "listed above" is deleted.
• differences concerning the standards of knowledge that people intend to uphold – clarify
• Others seek a common core among diverse examples of knowledge, such as Paul Silva's "awareness first" epistemology or Barry Allen's definition of knowledge as "superlative artifactual performance". – This essentially name drops philosophers without context. Instead, consider a one or two sentence description of what "common core among diverse examples of knowledge" actually means.
• that the believed fact caused the belief – Explain. Maybe this should be its own sentence?
• Other approaches include defining it in regard to the cognitive role it plays in providing reasons for doing or thinking something or seeing it as the most general factive mental state operator. – This is a mouthful. Even with the footnote, it should probably be rewritten for clarity.
• the JTB definition is a step in the right direction – This feels idiomatic
• they often fall prey – Also idiomatic

Types

• The first paragraph of this section doesn't serve a clear purpose. It's valuable information, but it doesn't clearly establish how the types of knowledge are different. I don't speak French, so the difference between connaître and savoir is meaningless to me. This either needs to be reworked or moved to a more appropriate place (likely a bit of both).
• Each type should give a clear definition at the beginning of its section. It doesn't mean anything to readers that propositional knowledge "is the paradigmatic type of knowledge in analytic philosophy" if they don't even know what propositional knowledge is. This is especially the case for readers that jump straight to that section without reading the Definitions section first.
• The distinctions between the major types are usually drawn based on the linguistic formulations used to express them – This is the sort of thing that would be better fit to introduce the Types section. It's not specifically about propositional knowledge, it's about the nature of the different types.
• I have never seen John F. Kennedy referred to as "J. F. Kennedy".
• is either occurrent and dispositional – Is this "and" supposed to be an "or"?
• I had to read the occurrent/dispositional paragraph twice to understand it. It might need to be simplified a bit.
• It is usually agreed that mainly humans and maybe other higher animals possess propositional knowledge – This should be rewritten to be more precise. I would suggest treating humans and higher animals in two separate sentences. Also, it should be moved to the section on propositional knowledge.
• A priori and a posteriori should always be italicized.
• The prime example of the relevant experience – Saying that something is "the prime example" comes across as subjective.
• The distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge is closely related to two other distinctions – It goes on to name the distinctions without clearly defining them for the reader. But as I said below, this paragraph might be undue anyway.
• Situated knowledge seems to be talking about two things at once. It starts by talking about know-how knowledge before switching to
  WP:FRANKENSTEIN
  concept of two types of knowledge with similar names.

Addressed below. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• Would the concept of "higher knowledge" be more appropriate for the religion section? Or does it also have applications in other branches of philosophy? I wonder if the theory of forms would also be applicable here (which I'm surprised isn't mentioned anywhere in the article).

The distinction between higher and lower knowledge matters mostly to religion so it could be moved there. But it also refers to different types of knowledge, so I think the section "Types" is also fine. It might be better to keep it here since, as you say, the section "Religion" already is too detailed as it is. I would be happy to include something about Plato's theory of forms on this if there are some good sources. On a quick search, I couldn't find anything substantial in relation to the terms "higher knowledge" and "lower knowledge". Phlsph7 (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

It could really go either way, which is why I presented it as a question rather than a recommendation. And yeah, theory of forms is more of a metaphysics thing. It does have implications for different levels of knowledge, but that doesn't necessarily mean it has to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebiguglyalien (talk • contribs) 18:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources of knowledge:

• This section is a bit long and might need some reorganizing. The first paragraph could probably be turned into two: one about perception and one about introspection.
• Sources of knowledge are "rational capacities for knowledge" – This definition doesn't add much. Without more context, it's practically just a synonym for "sources".
• This distinction is important – We shouldn't say in wikivoice what's important and what isn't. Instead, just describe what role it plays.

Structure of knowledge:

• The expression "structure of knowledge" refers to – The article should talk about the concepts, not the expressions. Instead of "refers to", describe what the structure of knowledge is.

Value of knowledge:

• The value of knowledge is an important topic in epistemology. – Begin by describing the basic premise without arguing that it's important.
• On this view, it seems difficult to explain – We shouldn't state that something "seems" to be the case. Maybe it "can be difficult" or "it becomes difficult", but it's not Wikipedia's place to say that something "seems" a certain way.

Philosophical skepticism:

• This position is quite radical – This is another example of "show, don't tell". Simply state that few philosophers defend it, and the reader will interpret that it is radical.
• The second paragraph uses "common sense" three times in two sentences. Try to avoid this repetition.

In various disciplines:

• The formal epistemology section could probably be rewritten to be more understandable.
• The science section has the opposite problem, where I can't really tell what the main point is because it doesn't provide any real insight beyond "the scientific method exists" and "Francis Bacon was involved in it".
• It is different from other forms of epistemology because of its unique subject matter. – This doesn't really say anything. "It's different because what it talks about is different." Either it should clarify how the subject matter is unique, or this sentence should be removed.
• As Pope Francis points out – Avoid "points out". It implies that we're agreeing with whoever we're quoting.
• The forms of communication listed are limited, and online communication especially suggests recentism.
• An important finding is that – Don't preview the statement by describing it as important, just present the statement factually.

Verifiable with no original research

• WP:EARWIG picks up no obvious plagiarism. Sources appear to be reliable. The one that might be an issue is "quotationspage.com".
• As a suggestion, try to avoid leaning to heavily on
  WP:TERTIARY
  sources like dictionaries and encyclopedias. They're generally reliable and they're much better than having no source at all, so they're likely going to be good enough for GA, but it might be worthwhile to find more secondary sources.

Generally speaking, I agree with you that secondary sources are preferable insofar as they usually provide a more detailed discussion. However, for articles on very general topics, like knowledge, it is often more important to provide a good overview rather than go a lot into detail. For this reason, I think the use of tertiary sources is not so much of a problem here. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree that tertiary sources have more value on an article like this relative to other articles, and there's no need to go through and start replacing all of them. Just be careful not to make it overly dependent on them. Literature reviews or similarly broad secondary sources can be especially valuable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Same comment with
  WP:PRIMARY
  sources. If you're describing a philosopher's beliefs or arguments, it's better to find an article or a book that analyzes that philosopher rather than quoting that philosopher's work directly. But again, that doesn't mean these primary sources are unreliable, and these primary sources are much better than nothing.
• Check where the inline citations are placed. I noticed instances where the citation was placed after an example that was made up for this article, which makes it look like the example comes from the source.
• On a related note, it would actually be better if the examples did come from sources when possible. The Gettier case with the barn facades is a good one because that's a well-established example used in academic philosophy. The best examples are the ones that are attributed to specific philosophers, such as Linda Zagzebski's cup of coffee.
• It often, but not exclusively, concerns a relation to a person. – I think this still puts too much emphasis on being about a person. Most of the examples on the IEP section of knowledge by acquaintance are not about people. It would be more accurate to say something to explain that it can be about anything that's experienced, perceived, or interacted with directly.
• After reading the sources of "Situated knowledge" more closely, it seems they confirm what I said above about
  WP:FRANKENSTEIN
  issues. According to Hunter (2009): The term “situated knowledge” has two quite distinct disciplinary connections.

I've tried to solve this issue by leaving out the discussion of relativism. However, I don't think that these are two distinct concepts, like mouse as an animal vs mouse as an input device. Also from Hunter 2009 in the following paragraph: The two disciplinary fields have come together in studies of knowledge deriving from practice.... As I understand it, we have one general concept here that is applied in feminist literature in a specific way. This is also what [11] seems to state. Grossly oversimplified, the two parts of the section are "situated knowledge is defined as..." and "feminists claim that all knowledge is situated knowledge". Do you think the section works in its current, modified form? Phlsph7 (talk) 10:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It should work in this form. If I personally were writing it, I would use this space to describe the difference between tacit and explicit knowledge, and then I would cover epistemic relativism (including the idea that knowledge is inherently situated) lower in the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• Is there any reason why the inline citation for Wilson (2012) is in the middle of the sentence?

Spotchecks

Spotchecks: Klein (1998): Checked four of 24 uses. Where does Klein argue that knowledge by acquaintance is propositional? He does not argue that it's propositional, he just suggests that it can be understood this way: On the one hand, it could be held that knowing a person (place or thing) should be construed as nothing more (or less) than knowing certain facts about that someone...Nevertheless, it is knowledge of facts, so-called propositional knowledge... Phlsph7 (talk) 11:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Good. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC) ...cannot possess an infinite number of reasons – Good. Where does it support the claim that foundationalists, coherentists and infinitists all face the Gettier problem? from section 5: A basic objection to the foundationalist’s and coherentist’s accounts of justification is that neither seems to be able to show that a true belief which satisfied their accounts would be non-accidentally true. I removed the claim about infinitism since it is not explicitly mentioned here. The relation to accidental truth is already discussed in the section "Definition". However, if it is not clear that this sentence describes the Gettier problem, we could add the following source to draw the connection to accidentally truth:[1] Phlsph7 (talk) 10:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC) That source should work, especially since it adds a secondary source to support the claim. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Conjunction, closure, and evidence transfer principles – Good. Steup & Neta (2020): Checked six of 28 uses. ...to provide reasons for thinking something or for doing something. – Good. ...as in knowing how to prove a mathematical theorem... – Good. Direct and indirect realism – Good. Introspection – Good. Brain in a vat – Good. Where does it support the common sense objection to skepticism? G. E. Moore has pointed out that an argument succeeds only to the extent that its premises are more plausible than the conclusion. So if we encounter an argument whose conclusion we find much more implausible than the denial of the premises, then we can turn the argument on its head. If it's not obvious that this is about common sense then we could add the following additional source:[2] Phlsph7 (talk) 11:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Agree that the source supports it but it's not obvious that it does. And as above, always lean toward adding the secondary source. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Bolisani & Bratianu (2018): Good. Thesis of the article supports this claim, serves as a supplementary source. García-Arnaldos (2020): I see that this source mentions that Wittgenstein has a theory of family resemblance. Does it actually tell us what the theory is? You are right: some of the details of the description were not covered by that source. I've added another source to cover that. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Good. If García-Arnaldos (2020) doesn't fully support the claim, it might be better to delete it and just use the new O'Brien (2016) source. Normally, I would agree. However, García-Arnaldos 2020 is freely available while O'Brien 2016 isn't. By keeping it, users who don't have access can at least check the basic claim. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Klausen (2015) + Lackey (2021): Both sources support all parts of this sentence. American Heritage Dictionary + Magee & Popper (1971): Both sources support the claim. Article quotes the example sentence from the dictionary. Note that this is a pairing of a tertiary and a primary source. Replacing both of these with a single secondary source would be an improvement. Pritchard (2013): Checked all four uses. Two are good, two have issues: Not convinced that it supports they usually can be paraphrased using a that-clause This is supported by Hetherington 2022: The usual view among epistemologists is that these are specific sorts of knowledge-that. For example, knowing whether it is 2 p.m. is knowing that it is 2 p.m., if it is; and knowing that it is not 2 p.m., if it is not. Knowing who is due to visit is knowing, for some specified person, that it is he or she who is due to visit. There's also a Pritchard (2013) inline citation there. If it doesn't support the sentence, it should be removed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC) The sentences starting with It is usually held that only relatively sophisticated... read like WP:Close paraphrasing. I've reformulated it. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Good. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Thakchoe (2022): Checked all three uses. This source seems to be almost exclusively about Buddhist use. Does it support that Lower knowledge is based on the senses and the intellect? One of the relevant passages here is: Knowledge of the conventional truth informs us how things are conventional, from the ordinary commonsense perspective and thus grounds our epistemic practice in its proper linguistic and conceptual conventional framework. Knowledge of the ultimate truth informs us of how things really are ultimate, from the ultimate analytical perspective and so takes our minds beyond the bounds of conceptual and linguistic conventions. The section "Yogācāra" goes more into the details of how this relates to the senses. But you are right that this source is not perfect. I moved it one sentence to the right so that the claim is now also covered by [12]. This source is more explicit: The lower knowledge is of the intellect and the senses and comprises all empirical and objective knowledge. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Good... Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Could you point to where it supports lower knowledge as being used or mundane/conventional things or common sense? See the quote above. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC) ...and good. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Third use is good. Kern (2017): Good. Weisberg (2021): Probably fine, but keep an eye out for close paraphrasing. Stevenson (2003): Good. Pope Francis quote: Good. Allwood (2013): Checked two of eight uses. ...undergoes changes in relation to social and cultural circumstances. – Good ...like university departments or scientific journals in the academic context. – Good, though the examples in this source are limited in scope (I briefly mentioned this above).

Broad in its coverage

Broad coverage:

• The study of knowledge could be covered more directly. I realize the
  WP:SUMMARY
  isn't really a good option right now. But a brief section here summarizing the study of knowledge and the history of knowledge is probably due. Such a section could also serve as a template to help improve epistemology article in the future.

I've opted instead for including a short general characterization of epistemology. Many of the sources cited before^[3] do not include a lot of information on the intellectual history of the discipline and only discuss it insofar as it relates to other, more specific issues. Our article epistemology also does not contain much information on it but this topic is probably better discussed there. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, this is probably the best approach. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• This article doesn't distinguish between explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge. It gets into related concepts (like know-that vs know-how), but it might warrant a mention of its own, even if it's just one sentence.
• cultural knowledge could be expanded upon. Domain knowledge might also be relevant, even if it's just a sentence or two. How accessible knowledge is (and has been historically) should be covered as well. Education
  generally applies to all of this. Sources of knowledge, science, and/or anthropology might benefit from a few more sentences on these topics.

I've tried to include some of what you mentioned here, such as the section on sociology and some shorter mentions of others. The problem is that this field is just too big: there are countless other types of "X knowledge" and they can't all be included. If they don't belong to the main types discussed in detail by main sources, it's often difficult to find non-arbitrary criteria to decide what is required and what would be undue. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

If a point doesn't warrant its own section, it can always be folded into another section. In this case, science, anthropology, and sociology are all related and could be reorganized if it becomes necessary. With a broad topic article like this one, sometimes a sentence is really all that's needed to completely cover something at the correct scope. But so far it looks good, I think. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Value of knowledge doesn't really say much about the practical aspects of knowledge. It just leaves it at a couple of examples (the student and the doctor). More could be said about how knowledge is used by society and civilization.
• individuals who associate themselves with similar identities, like age-influenced, professional, religious, and ethnic identities, tend to embody similar forms of knowledge. – This feels like it would be way too important to just be one sentence.
• Should there be information on ignorance? I don't know.

Excessive detail:

• A priori and a posteriori goes into a lot of detail. It could probably be reduced to two paragraphs and/or used to expand the a priori and a posteriori article. The third paragraph as a whole might be a bit more detailed than the article needs.
• A lot of detail has been added on knowledge in religion, beyond the broad overview this article should provide. I would suggest reducing this section to a few paragraphs with the main ideas and then moving the details to a sub-article. (Religious epistemology might be appropriate, but I'm not sure.)

I've removed many of the less important details from the section "Religion". For now, I've left the paragraph on the Qabalah as it is. What are your thoughts? Phlsph7 (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Some of the examples are given undue weight. I've mentioned above how it might be advisable to change how examples are used, but a few in particular go on for a while. The dream argument, while definitely important enough to be mentioned, probably shouldn't be given more than one sentence. The Ford/BMW example also goes on for a while.

Neutral

The only real concern here is the amount of weight given to different epistemological schools of thought. Empiricism and rationalism, arguably the two most important, are given adequate coverage in sources of knowledge, though they could be distinguished more clearly. Some major schools of thought, such as

To me, it seems justified to have more emphasis on skepticism than on the others because that's what reliable sources tend to do. For example, have a look at the tables of content of the following sources: [13], [14], [15], and [16]: they all have chapters on skepticism (some even several ones) but not on the others. I found a way to mention pragmatism. As for relativism, I don't think it is very important. The sources just mentioned do not contain a substantial discussion of it. The Stanford article doesn't even mention it. As for the section "decolonial scholarship": do you think it should be removed? Phlsph7 (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The most important thing is that the sources have been evaluated for these things. As far as decolonial scholarship, I wouldn't remove it entirely, but it should probably be reduced. Personally, I would summarize it in a sentence under anthropology or sociology (or wherever it might fit best). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Stable

There seem to have been some disputes about the religion section in mid-February. Has this been resolved?

The dispute was about the paragraph on the Qabalah. It has been solved, see the discussion at Talk:Knowledge#Paragraph_on_knowledge_in_the_Qabalah. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Noted. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Illustrated

All images are Creative Commons or public domain. I suspect that the diagrams are ineligible for copyright and automatically in the public domain. Some of the images feel vaguely decorative, but I think they have sufficient relevance, especially since this is a broad concept article. Captions sufficiently describe context and relevance.