Talk:Common knowledge

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Common knowledge article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Philosophy: Epistemology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Epistemology Education Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 October 2021 and 15 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KelseyStrom. Peer reviewers: Zhoulez.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that with more research this paragraph could be extended to include other specific settings that common knowledge comes into play like science and technology. Good source is needed for this though. KelseyStrom (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)KelseyStrom[reply]

I thought it was important to add a section on common belief because some scholars site differences between common knowledge and common belief but others do not make the distinction. I am not sure if this draws the focus away from common knowledge too much or not and would definitely understand if there is a general want to remove this section. I have been editing out things without citations and adding citations to sections without to try to build the foundation of this article and would appreciate any helpful insights you all have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KelseyStrom (talk • contribs) 10:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article now seems contradictory in relation to the historical belief that the sun revolved around the earth. If it is now "common knowledge" that the earth revolves around the sun, and this is considered scientifically to be true, should the historical belief that the sun moved round the earth be labelled as common belief (and false) rather than an earlier version of common knowledge? BobKilcoyne (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add a section to the page about problems associated with trying to label something as common knowledge. For example, I think it is important to note that common knowledge in one area of the world is not the same as in other areas. One example given here is the 5th amendment, but why would someone in Ethiopia or France or somewhere else know this as common knowledge? It may be claimed as common knowledge for Americans who have attended high school perhaps. There are other examples I would like to include too and would be open to suggestions if anyone has anything else to add.KelseyStrom (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)KelseyStrom[reply]

I think it is important to make a point that the knowledge that is commonly known between people must be publicly known. For example, if everyone knows that traditional hamburgers are made from ground beef, but nobody knows that anyone else knows, it is not considered common knowledge because everyone would think that they are the only person to know this fact.

Is it just me or is a bit ironic that the "common knowledge" article has been docked for not citing its sources? Shouldn't it be assumed that since this article is, in fact, about common knowledge, that its contents need not be cited, since they are common knowledge? Clarkefreak ∞ 19:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put references. Pierre de Lyon 08:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In economics, even if everybody knows something, it is not necessarily common knowledge. It only becomes common knowledge when every body knows that everybody else knows, and everybody knows that everybody else that they know, and so on, to the nth degree. This distinction is very relevant, particularly in social situations.

For instance, suppose there is a circle of friends, and one in the circle is a jerk, which nobody else likes. However, the friends do not know that the others do not like the jerk - they think they are alone in their opinions of him. This is the shared perception by all of the friends, and as a result they do not ostracize him from the group, as they would have individually. Then they have a conversation about several obnoxious things the jerk has done, and all the friends contribute to the conversation. Now, the jerk cannot get away with being obnoxious, since the friends no longer tolerate such behavior. They have developed a group consciousness. Though they all had identical individual knowledge to begin, they did not have common knowledge and could thus not act as a group.

I believe this idea should be accredited to Professor Shyam Sunder in his book "Theory of Accounting and Control". He mentions it in the first several pages, but I cannot properly cite it since I do not have a copy of the book with me.

--128.2.25.39 15:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. We do have an article dealing with common knowledge as its used in economics, logic, and computer science. Please see Common knowledge (logic). --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a first year college student I am not well qualified to write on this subject but it certainly seems that a section should be included describing the issues of use/abuse of common knowledge in the academic research field. I will leave a couple of links here to illustrate and hopefully an editor more familiar with the issues will be able to add value to this article.

• Yale [1]
• Princeton [2]

Low Sea (talk) 06:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

which is this highest building in the world —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.102.142.165 (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Burj-Khalifa Hotel in Dubai, India. 800m/2625ft tall. Andy_Howard (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was disturbed to see that typing in "general knowledge" takes us here. The terms "common knowledge" and "general knowledge" ARE NOT the same. Common knowledge refers to the body of facts that any educated member of the general public would know. "General knowledge" refers to how much an individual knows about subjects in general - the topic that has always formed the second part of Mastermind. Can this please go to Category: Redirects for discussion? Many thanks, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On this theme, I have now removed the rather misleading section at the beginning that "common knowledge is more commonly known as general knowledge". ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That also goes for the even more misleading assertion that common knowledge is sometimes called "logic".ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just seen that this article makes misleading claims about quiz programmes asking questions on common knowledge, which of course they do not - they ask questions on general knowledge. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As from July 2011, the term "general knowledge" no longer redirects here - hurrah!May this never ever be reversed! Thank you to those who sorted this out - thanks a million. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is borderline unreadable. Can a native speaker of English just rewrite it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.215.185.82 (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	This article was edited as part of the San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-thon. The editor who attended the event may be a new editor. In an effort to support new editor's & a healthy environment, please assume good faith to their contributions before making changes. Thank you! Sarah (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a massive cleanup was needed Andy_Howard (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly opposed: I have detailed my reasons on the general knowledge talk page, but will briefly mention that an editor has previously pointed out on this talk page they are not the same thing and that this distinction is already explained in the current article. I believe such a merger would be counter-productive and serve no useful purpose.--Smcg8374 (talk) 04:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the template.--Smcg8374 (talk) 06:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know what this sentence means? It's been in the article for many years, but I can't understand it: 'Many techniques have been developed in response to the question of distinguishing truth from fact in matters that have become "common knowledge".'

It needs to be rewritten so we can understand it! — This, that and the other (talk) 04:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

→I think what this sentence was trying to say was that there is a difference between fact and belief and i tried to add a section with this written more clearly. KelseyStrom (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Kelsey Strom[reply]

"It is dangerous to mix ammonia and bleach." Is this really common knowledge? I had no idea. I've never needed to use bleach or ammonia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.32.139 (talk) 12:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While much common knowledge is true and can be verified through the scientific process, some common knowledge, especially in the past, is or was not factually true. Some common examples of things thought of as "common knowledge" by many today but which are actually false include: Shaving causes hair to grow back thicker, Milk is absolutely essential to your health, Depression is purely biochemical, we use only 10% of our brains. As such, we really should include at least some discussion as how something being common knowledge does not automatically make it true or a fact. I imagine much common knowledge has truth to it but not all. This should all be addressed in the article. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Rational Rituals" by Michael Chwe looks like an important possible reference for this article. Web search finds tons of references to it. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 04:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]