Talk:Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

message: I moved this to Wikipedia:Comparison to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ---- Charles Stewart 10:12, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I'm the editor who added the errors section.  The errors both deal with capitalism because of the nature of the article, not with my personal views.  Please assume good faith in this regard.  I'm OK with you moving the errors to the Wikipedia page, though.  Just don't remove them.--Urthogie 21:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The entire sentence is included, but the error is not in the "north south" gap part.  its when she says "working to further marginalize women, ethnic or indigenous minorities, and the disabled in the so-called Third and Fourth Worlds."  Secondly, how is the race error similar?--Urthogie 00:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with you that it should be moved, but your understanding of the error's is completely flawed.  There are no two opinions on whether races have somewhat of a genetic basis.--Urthogie 03:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't delete it unless you plan to move it also.--Urthogie 19:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I moved it to Wikipedia:Comparison to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Qxz 07:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison of SEP to Wikipedia

message: I take it from the copyright page that all the mentions on the site of it being "Free" actually refer to the cost to access and not the licensing? --Gwern  (contribs) 02:05 5 April 2007 (GMT)
:precisely. the website has copyright info, and articles are credited to individuals. they want to maintain free access, as it obviously costs them to produce it.76.252.223.197 (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  License 

message: The SEP is funded by a variety of sources, including many universities. Should we add a section about which universities fund SEP?Or is this unnecessary?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.142.124.39 (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect it would be boring to read and tricky to update to list all the universities as there are dozens if not hundreds and they will change from year to year as universities  add and drop support.  How is described in the article already and so the best method if a list is desired is giving the link in the external links section.  The only exception I can think of would be for the three universities that mirror the encyclopedia as well as provide funds   --Erp (talk) 07:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funding sources? 

message: What is the WP:RS for calling SEP an "encyclopedia"? It self-admits to containing original research, unlike a real encyclopedia. When one asks the question of Ed Zalta, he simply shrugs his shoulders. Calling it an "encyclopedia" is like (but less dangerous than) calling alternative medicine "medicine" . (This comment is not meant to be disparaging of SEP, since not onlhy are its encyclopedia articles very good, but its original research articles, while not technically encyclopedia articles, are also very good.) ParkSehJik (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that their peer-reviewed articles are certainly reliable sources. --181.164.97.184 (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the [[WP:RS]] for calling SEP an "[[encyclopedia]]"? 

message: Saw this and thought it might interest the community. It needs to be viewed on a desktop browser. [] TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 14:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related data visualization project