Teleology
A teleology is an account of a given thing’s purpose. For 2.1 Platonic
example, a teleological explanation of why forks have
prongs is that this design helps humans eat certain foods; In the Phaedo, Plato through Socrates argues that true
stabbing food to help humans eat is what forks are for.
A purpose that is imposed by a human use, such as that
[1]
of a fork, is called extrinsic. Natural teleology contends
that natural entities have intrinsic purposes, irrespective
of human use or opinion. For instance, Aristotle claimed
that an acorn’s intrinsic telos is to become a fully grown
oak tree.[2]
Though ancient atomists rejected the notion of natural
teleology, teleological accounts of non-personal or non-
human nature were explored and often endorsed in an-
cient and medieval philosophies, but fell into disfavor
during the modern era (1600-1900).
In the late 18th century, Immanuel Kant used the concept
of telos as a regulative principle in his Critique of Judg-
ment. Teleology was also fundamental to the speculative
philosophy of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.
Contemporary philosophers and scientists are still ac-
tively discussing whether teleological talk is useful or
accurate in doing modern philosophy and science. For
instance, in 2012, Thomas Nagel proposed a neo-
Darwinian account of evolution that incorporates im-
personal, natural teleological laws to explain the exis-
tence of life, consciousness, rationality, and objective
value.[3] Another example is chaos theory and its notion
of attractor.[4]
1 Etymology
The word teleology builds on the Greek τέλος, telos (root:
τελε-, “end, purpose”)[5] and -λογία, logia, “a branch of
learning”. The German philosopher Christian von Wolff
coined the term (in the Latin form "teleologia") in 1728
in his work Philosophia rationalis, sive logica.[6]
2 Historical overview
In western philosophy, the term and concept of teleology
originated in the writings of Plato and Aristotle. Aristo-
tle’s Four Causes give special place to each thing’s telos or
“final cause.” In this, he followed Plato in seeing purpose
in both human and sub-human nature.
explanations for any given physical phenomenon must be
teleological. He bemoans those who fail to distinguish
between a thing’s necessary and sufficient causes, which
he identifies respectively as material and final causes
(Phaedo 98-9):
Imagine not being able to distinguish the
real cause, from that without which the cause
would not be able to act, as a cause. It is what
the majority appear to do, like people groping
in the dark; they call it a cause, thus giving it
a name that does not belong to it. That is why
one man surrounds the earth with a vortex to
make the heavens keep it in place, another
makes the air support it like a wide lid. As for
their capacity of being in the best place they
could be at this very time, this they do not look
for, nor do they believe it to have any divine
force, but they believe that they will some time
discover a stronger and more immortal Atlas
to hold everything together more, and they do
not believe that the truly good and 'binding'
binds and holds them together.
—Plato, Phaedo 99
Plato here argues that, e.g., the materials that compose a
body are necessary conditions for its moving or acting in
a certain way, but that these materials cannot be the suf-
ficient condition for its moving or acting as it does. For
example, (given in Phaedo 98), if Socrates is sitting in
an Athenian prison, the elasticity of his tendons is what
allows him to be sitting, and so a physical description of
his tendons can be listed as necessary conditions or aux-
iliary causes of his act of sitting (Phaedo 99b; Timaeus
46c9-d4, 69e6). However, these are only necessary con-
ditions of Socrates’ sitting. To give a physical description
of Socrates’ body is to say that Socrates is sitting, but it
does not give us any idea why it came to be that he was
sitting in the first place. To say why he was sitting and
not not sitting, we have to explain what it is about his
sitting that is good, for all things brought about (i.e., all
products of actions) are brought about because the actor
saw some good in them. Thus, to give an explanation of
something is to determine what about it is good. Its good-
ness is its actual cause - its purpose, telos or “reason for
which” (Timaeus 27d8-29a).
1
2 4 MODERN AND POSTMODERN PHILOSOPHY

2.2 Aristotelian when they describe natural tendencies towards certain

end conditions. While some argue that these arguments
Similarly, Aristotle argued that Democritus was wrong can be rephrased in non-teleological forms, others hold
to attempt to reduce all things to mere necessity, because that teleological language cannot be expunged from de-
doing so neglects the aim, order, and “final cause,” which scriptions in the life sciences.
brings about these necessary conditions:

Democritus, however, neglecting the final 4 Modern and postmodern philos-

cause, reduces to necessity all the operations
of nature. Now they are necessary, it is true,
but yet they are for a final cause and for the
sake of what is best in each case. Thus nothing
prevents the teeth from being formed and
being shed in this way; but it is not on account
of these causes but on account of the end....
—Aristotle, Generation of Animals V.8,
789a8-b15
In the Physics Aristotle rejected Plato’s assumption that what is now called analytic philosophy — the point of de-
the universe was created by an intelligent designer using parture is not so much formal logic and scientific fact but
eternal forms as his model. For Aristotle, natural ends 'identity'. (In Hegel’s terminology: 'objective spirit'.)
are produced by “natures” (principles of change internal Individual human consciousness, in the process of reach-
to living things), and natures, Aristotle argued, do not de- ing for autonomy and freedom, has no choice but to deal
liberate:
“It is absurd to suppose that ends are not
present [in nature] because we do not see an
agent deliberating.”
—Aristotle, Physics 2.8, 199b27-9;[7] see also
Physics 2.5-6 where “natures” are contrasted
with intelligence[8]
These Platonic and Aristotelian arguments ran counter
to those presented earlier by Democritus and later by
Lucretius, both of whom were supporters of what is now
often called accidentalism:
Nothing in the body is made in order that
we may use it. What happens to exist is the
cause of its use.
—Lucretius, De rerum natura (On the Nature
of Things), IV, 833; cf. 822-56.
3 Disfavor
Since the Novum Organum of Francis Bacon, teleological
explanations in science tend to be deliberately avoided in
favor of focus on material and efficient explanations. Fi-
nal and formal causation came to be viewed as false or
too subjective.[9]
Some disciplines, in particular within evolutionary biol-
ogy, continue to use language that appears teleological
ophy
Historically, teleology may be identified with the philo-
sophical tradition of Aristotelianism. The rationale of
teleology was explored by Immanuel Kant in his Critique
of Judgement and, again, made central to speculative phi-
losophy by Hegel and in the various neo-Hegelian schools
— proposing a history of our species some consider to be
at variance with Darwin, as well as with the dialectical
materialism of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, and with
with an obvious reality: the collective identities (such as
the multiplicity of world views, ethnic, cultural and na-
tional identities) that divide the human race and set (and
always have set) different groups in violent conflict with
each other. Hegel conceived of the 'totality' of mutually
antagonistic world-views and life-forms in history as be-
ing 'goal-driven', that is, oriented towards an end-point
in history. The 'objective contradiction' of 'subject' and
'object' would eventually 'sublate' into a form of life that
leaves violent conflict behind. This goal-oriented, 'tele-
ological' notion of the 'historical process as a whole' is
present in a variety of 20th century authors, although its
prominence declined drastically after the Second World
War.
In contrast, teleological based "grand narratives" are es-
chewed by the postmodern attitude[10] and teleology may
be viewed as reductive, exclusionary and harmful to those
whose stories are diminished or overlooked.[11]
Against this postmodern position, Alasdair MacIntyre
has argued that a narrative understanding of oneself, of
one’s capacity as an independent reasoner, one’s depen-
dence on others and on the social practices and traditions
in which one participates, all tend towards an ultimate
good of liberation. Social practices may themselves be
understood as teleologically oriented to internal goods,
for example practices of philosophical and scientific in-
quiry are teleologically ordered to the elaboration of a
true understanding of their objects. MacIntyre’s book
After Virtue famously dismissed the naturalistic teleology
of Aristotle’s 'metaphysical biology', but he has cautiously
moved from that book’s account of a sociological teleol-
ogy toward an exploration of what remains valid in a more
traditional teleological naturalism.
 3

5 Teleology and ethics committed on the way to that goal, even if the bad acts are
relatively minor and the goal is major (like telling a small
Teleology informs the study of ethics. lie to prevent a war and save millions of lives). In requir-
ing all constituent acts to be good, deontological ethics is
much more rigid than consequentialism, which varies by
5.1 Business ethics circumstances.
Practical ethics are usually a mix of the two. For exam-
Main article: Business ethics ple, Mill also relies on deontic maxims to guide practical
behavior, but they must be justifiable by the principle of
[14]
Business people commonly think in terms of purpose- utility.
ful action as in, for example, management by objectives.
Teleological analysis of business ethics leads to consid-
eration of the full range of stakeholders in any business 6 Teleology and science
decision, including the management, the staff, the cus-
tomers, the shareholders, the country, humanity and the
See also: Four causes § The four causes in modern
environment.[12]
science

5.2 Medical ethics In modern science, explanations that rely on teleology are
often, but not always, avoided, either because they are
Main article: Medical ethics unnecessary or because whether they are true or false is
thought to be beyond the ability of human perception and
understanding to judge.[9] But using teleology as an ex-
Teleology provides a moral basis for the professional
planatory style, in particular within evolutionary biology,
ethics of medicine, as physicians are generally concerned
is still controversial.[15]
with outcomes and must therefore know the telos of a
given treatment paradigm.[13]
6.1 Biology
5.3 Consequentialism
Apparent teleology is a recurring issue in evolutionary bi-
Main article: Consequentialism ology,[16] much to the consternation of some writers.[15]
Statements which imply that nature has goals, for ex-
The broad spectrum of consequentialist ethics, of which ample where a species is said to do something “in or-
utilitarianism is a well-known example, focuses on the der to” achieve survival, appear teleological, and there-
end result or consequences, with such principles as fore invalid. Usually, it is possible to rewrite such sen-
utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill's “the greatest tences to avoid the apparent teleology. Some biology
courses have incorporated exercises requiring students to
good for the greatest number”, or the Principle of Utility.
Hence this principle is teleological, but in a broader sense rephrase such sentences so that they do not read teleo-
logically. Nevertheless, biologists still frequently write in
than is elsewhere understood in philosophy. In the clas-
sical notion, teleology is grounded in the inherent natures a way which can be read as implying teleology even if
that is not the intention. These issues have recently been
of things themselves, whereas in consequentialism, tele-
ology is imposed on nature from outside by the human discussed by John Reiss.[17] He argues that evolutionary
biology can be purged of such teleology by rejecting the
will. Consequentialist theories justify inherently what
most people would call evil acts by their desirable out- analogy of natural selection as a watchmaker; other ar-
comes, if the good of the outcome outweighs the bad of guments against this analogy have also been promoted by
the act. So for example, a consequentialist theory would writers such as Richard Dawkins.[18]
say it was acceptable to actively kill one person in order Some authors, like James Lennox, have argued that Dar-
to save two or more other people. These theories may win was a teleologist,[19] while others like Michael Ghis-
be summarized by the maxim “the ends can justify the elin described this claim as a myth promoted by misin-
means.” terpretations of his discussions and emphasized the dis-
Consequentialism stands in contrast to the more classical tinction between
[20]
using teleological metaphors and being
notions of deontological ethics, such as Immanuel Kant's teleological.
Categorical Imperative, and Aristotle's virtue ethics (al- Biologist philosopher Francisco Ayala has argued that all
though formulations of virtue ethics are also often con- statements about processes can be trivially translated into
sequentialist in derivation). In deontological ethics, the teleological statements, and vice versa, but that teleolog-
goodness or badness of individual acts is primary and ical statements are more explanatory and cannot be dis-
a desirable larger goal is insufficient to justify bad acts posed of.[21] Karen Neander has argued that the mod-
4 8 REFERENCES

ern concept of biological 'function' is dependent upon • The chicken or the egg
selection. So, for example, it is not possible to say that
anything that simply winks into existence without going • Cybernetics
through a process of selection has functions. We decide
whether an appendage has a function by analysing the pro- • Destiny
cess of selection that led to it. Therefore, any talk of func-
• Dysteleology
tions must be posterior to natural selection and function
cannot be defined in the manner advocated by Reiss and • Elohim
Dawkins.[22] Ernst Mayr states that “adaptedness... is a
posteriori result rather than an a priori goal-seeking.”[23] • Ed Ricketts
Various commentators view the teleological phrases used
in modern evolutionary biology as a type of shorthand. • Efficient cause, final cause
For example, S. H. P. Madrell writes that “the proper but
cumbersome way of describing change by evolutionary • Emergence
adaptation [may be] substituted by shorter overtly teleo-
logical statements” for the sake of saving space, but that • Four causes
this “should not be taken to imply that evolution proceeds
• Moirai
by anything other than from mutations arising by chance,
with those that impart an advantage being retained by nat-
• Naturalism (philosophy)
ural selection.”[24] J. B. S. Haldane said, “Teleology is like
a mistress to a biologist: he cannot live without her but • Orthogenesis
he’s unwilling to be seen with her in public.”.[25][26] An-
drew Askland, from the Sandra Day O'Connor College • Rationalism
of Law claims that transhumanism is “wholly teleologi-
cal” but evolution is ateleological.[27] • Telesis

• Teleological argument
6.2 Cybernetics
• Teleological behaviorism
Julian Bigelow, Arturo Rosenblueth, and Norbert Wiener
• Telos (philosophy)
have conceived of feedback mechanisms as lending a tele-
ology to machinery. Wiener, a mathematician, coined
the term 'cybernetics' to denote the study of “teleolog-
ical mechanisms.”[28] Cybernetics is the study of the 8 References
communication and control of regulatory feedback both
in living beings and machines, and in combinations of the [1] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14474a.htm and http:
two. In the cybernetic classification presented in “Behav- //www.texttribe.com/routledge/T/Teleology.html
ior, Purpose and Teleology”, teleology is feedback con-
trolled purpose.[29][30] This classification system was crit- [2] Aristotle, Metaphysics 1050a9–17
icized and the need for an external observability to the
[3] Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos, Oxford University
purposeful behavior was established to validate the be-
Press: 2012.
havior and goal-attainment. The purpose of observing
and observed systems is respectively distinguished by the [4] Heinz von Foerster, (1992), Cybernetics. In S. C. Shapiro,
system’s subjective autonomy and objective control.[31] Encyclopedia of artificial intelligence, v. 1, p. 226

[5] Eric Partridge, Origins: A Short Etymological Dictionary

6.3 Teleonomy of Modern English, Routledge, 1977, p. 4187.

[6] Wolff, Christian (1728). Philosophia Rationalis Sive Log-

In recent years, end-driven teleology has become con-
trasted with “apparent” teleology, i.e. teleonomy or
process-driven systems.
ica: Methodo Scientifica Pertractata Et Ad Usum Scien-
tiarum Atque Vitae Aptata. Frankfurt and Leipzig (pub-
lished 1732). Retrieved 2014-11-20.

[7] Aristotle. The Organon and Other Works. Opensource

7 See also collection. Translated under the editorship of W.D. Ross.
Full text at Internet Archive (archive.org). p. 649 in text.
n647 in page field. Retrieved 2009-10-22.
• Anthropic principle
[8] Aristotle. The Organon and Other Works. pp. 640–644
• Causality in text. n639–643 in page field. Retrieved 2009-10-22.

[9] “The received intellectual tradition has it that, in the six-
teenth and seventeenth centuries, revolutionary philoso-
phers began to curtail and reject the teleology of the
medieval and scholastic Aristotelians, abandoning final
causes in favor of a purely mechanistic model of the Uni-
verse.” Ransom Johnson, Monte (2008), Aristotle on Tele-
ology, Oxford University Press pages 23-24.
[10] Jean-François Lyotard (1979).
[11] Lochhead, Judy (2000). Postmodern Music/Postmodern
Thought, p. 6. (ISBN 0-8153-3820-1)
[12] Leonard J. Brooks, Paul Dunn (2009-03-31). “Business &
Professional Ethics for Directors, Executives & Accoun-
tants”. Cengage Learning. p. 149. ISBN 978-0-324-
59455-3.
[13] Jeremy Sugarman, Daniel P. Sulmasy (2001). Methods
in medical ethics. Georgetown University Press. p. 78.
ISBN 978-0-87840-873-3.
[14] John Gray, Ed. (1998). John Stuart Mill On Liberty And
Other Essays. Oxford University Press. p. ix. ISBN 0-19-
283384-7.
[15] Hanke, David (2004). “Teleology: The explanation that
bedevils biology”. In John Cornwell. Explanations: Styles
of explanation in science. Oxford & New York: Oxford
University Press. pp. 143–155. ISBN 0-19-860778-4.
Retrieved 18 July 2010.
[16] Ruse, M., & Travis, J. (Eds.) (2009). Evolution: The
First Four Billion Years. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, page 364
[17] Reiss, John O. (2009) Not by Design: Retiring Darwin’s
Watchmaker. Berkeley, California: University of Califor-
nia Press
[18] Dawkins, Richard (1987) The Blind Watchmaker: Why
the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without De-
sign. New York: W W Norton & Company
[19] Lennox, James G. (1993). “Darwin was a Teleologist”
Biology and Philosophy, 8, 409-21.
[20] Ghiselin, Michael T. (1994). “Darwin’s language
may seem teleological, but his thinking is another
matter”. Biology and Philosophy 9 (4): 489–492.
doi:10.1007/BF00850377.
[21] Ayala, Francisco (1998). “Teleological explanations in
evolutionary biology.” Nature’s purposes: Analyses of
Function and Design in Biology. The MIT Press.
[22] Neander, Karen (1998). “Functions as Selected Ef-
fects: The Conceptual Analyst’s Defense,” in C. Allen, M.
Bekoff & G. Lauder (Eds.), Nature’s Purposes: Analyses
of Function and Design in Biology (pp. 313-333). Cam-
bridge, MA; London, UK: The MIT Press.
[23] Mayr, Ernst W. (1992). “The idea of teleology” Journal
of the History of Ideas, 53, 117–135.
[24] Madrell SHP (1998) Why are there no insects in the open
sea? The Journal of Experimental Biology 201:2461–
2464.
5
[25] Hull, D., Philosophy of Biological Science, Foundations
of Philosophy Series, Prentice–Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.
J., 1973.
[26] Mayr, Ernst (1974) Boston Studies in the Philosophy of
Science, Volume XIV, pages 91–117.
[27] Andrew Askland The Misnomer of Transhumanism as Di-
rected Evolution, International Journal of Emerging Tech-
nologies and Society, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2011, pp: 71 – 78
[28] Cybernetics, or control and communication in the animal
and machine' (1948)
[29] Rosenblueth, Arturo; Wiener, Norbert; Bigelow, Julian
(Jan 1943). “Behavior, Purpose and Teleology”. Philoso-
phy of Science 10 (1): 21. doi:10.1086/286788. JSTOR
184878.
[30] Conway, Patrick (1974). Development of volitional com-
petence. MSS Information Corp. p. 60. ISBN 0-8422-
0424-5.
[31] George, Frank Honywill; Johnson, Les (1985). Purposive
behavior and teleological explanations. Gordon and
Breach. pp. xII.
9 Further reading
• Aristotle, Metaphysics Book Theta (translated
with an introduction and commentary by Stephen
Makin), Oxford University Press, 2006. (ISBN
0-19-875108-7 / 978-0-19-875108-3)
• Arturo Rosenblueth, Norbert Wiener, and Julian
Bigelow, 1943, “Behavior, Purpose and Teleology,”
Philosophy of Science 10: 18-24.
• Allan Gotthelf, “Aristotle’s Conception of Final
Causality”, in Philosophical Issues in Aristotle’s Biol-
ogy (edited by A. Gotthelf and J. G. Lennox), Cam-
bridge University Press, 1987 (ISBN 0-52-131091-
1 / 978-0-52-131091-8)
• Monte Ransome Johnson, Aristotle on Teleology,
Oxford University Press, 2005. (ISBN 0-19-
928530-6 / 978-0-19-928530-3)
• Kelvin Knight, Aristotelian Philosophy: Ethics and
Politics from Aristotle to MacIntyre, Polity Press,
2007. (ISBN 978-0-7456-1977-4 / 0-745-61977-0)
• Georg Lukács. History and Class Consciousness.
(ISBN 0-262-62020-0)
• Horkheimer and Adorno. Dialectic of Enlighten-
ment. (ISBN 0-8047-3632-4)
• Alasdair MacIntyre, 'First Principles, Final Ends,
and Contemporary Philosophical Issues’, in idem.,
The Tasks of Philosophy: Selected Essays, Volume 1,
Cambridge University Press, 2006. (ISBN 978-0-
521-67061-6 / 0-521-67061-6)
6 9 FURTHER READING

• Herbert Marcuse. Hegel’s Ontology and the Theory

of Historicity. (ISBN 0-262-13221-4)
• Lowell Nissen, Teleological Language in the Life Sci-
ences, Rowman & Littlefield, 1997 (ISBN 0-8476-
8694-9)
 7

10 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

10.1 Text
• Teleology Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology?oldid=675323779 Contributors: The Cunctator, Wesley, Heron, Ryguasu, Stev-
ertigo, Edward, Michael Hardy, Dominus, Vera Cruz, Gabbe, IZAK, William M. Connolley, Poor Yorick, Evercat, Ehn, Ec5618, Charles
Matthews, Timwi, Dtgm, Zoicon5, Hyacinth, Sushimatsuda, Camerong, Banno, Jmabel, Goethean, Sam Spade, Cutler, Noizy, Luis Dan-
tas, Lussmu~enwiki, Dratman, FeloniousMonk, Jdavidb, Gubbubu, Pgan002, Andycjp, Karol Langner, Rdsmith4, Eranb, Karl-Henner,
Klemen Kocjancic, Random account 47, Lucidish, D6, FranksValli, Masudr, Vsmith, Dave souza, Kaisershatner, El C, Wareh, Bobo192,
Bontenbal, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, Mdd, Jumbuck, Gary, Mennato, Ungtss, Leonardo Alves, Hu, Finfobia, Jakobschmid, Nugget-
boy, David Haslam, Isnow, Rjwilmsi, FlaBot, Rats, Vclaw, Truman Burbank, Echeneida, Bgwhite, YurikBot, Bhny, SpuriousQ, Yamara,
Gaius Cornelius, Odysses, Chick Bowen, Ifs-ffm, BlackAndy, Bilz0r, Mgnbar, Andrew Lancaster, Palthrow, Anclation~enwiki, SmackBot,
InverseHypercube, Eaglizard, Cazort, Surazeus, Portillo, Hmains, Master Jay, Jbrener, Fuzzform, Sct72, Vanished User 0001, Say2joe,
Xyzzyplugh, Richard001, Michael Rogers, Byelf2007, SashatoBot, Eliyak, Philosophus, D.illah, K, Colonel Warden, Markbassett, CR-
Greathouse, CmdrObot, Thomasmeeks, Gregbard, MILH, Zginder, Dr.enh, Underpants, Letranova, Thijs!bot, Voltaire77, RichardVer-
yard, Adrianmander, Sbretz, Gökhan, JAnDbot, NapoliRoma, MER-C, The Transhumanist, Matthew Fennell, TallulahBelle, Lsi, Magi-
oladitis, Lyonscc, JaGa, Oicumayberight, Fconaway, Erkan Yilmaz, Overix, Ekachakra, Maurice Carbonaro, Kelvin Knight, Tarotcards,
Dicorpo, Chiswick Chap, Heyitspeter, Jevansen, VolkovBot, Patman24, Broadbot, Shadowlapis, Sothisislife101, Millancad, Alexdeange-
lis86, Thefellswooper, SieBot, Paradoctor, XDanielx, Martarius, ClueBot, Meffo, Xavexgoem, ZuluPapa5, Truth is relative, understand-
ing is limited, Bdongol, Aitias, Darth Wombat, JKeck, Pfhorrest, Aunt Entropy, Anticipation of a New Lover’s Arrival, The, Addbot,
Willking1979, Saltymeds, Fyrael, Fgnievinski, AkhtaBot, Redheylin, Debresser, Quercus solaris, Lightbot, Ivanov id, Jarble, Legobot,
Luckas-bot, Yobot, Jfreyreg, AnomieBOT, JackieBot, Boscovich, LilHelpa, Daphne-3, Omnipaedista, SassoBot, Shadowjams, VTPG,
Paine Ellsworth, Machine Elf 1735, Citation bot 1, Winterst, Pinethicket, FoxBot, TobeBot, Trappist the monk, Wotnow, CircularRea-
son, LilyKitty, Theo10011, Berlinger, RjwilmsiBot, WikitanvirBot, Rabbabodrool, K6ka, Dallier, Parmenides39, Faust~enwiki, Mcc1789,
Mjbmrbot, ClueBot NG, Snotbot, ChrisBateman, Helpful Pixie Bot, Faus, Northamerica1000, Knowledge Examiner, Davidiad, BattyBot,
ChrisGualtieri, Nathanielfirst, Moagim, BreakfastJr, Eminence2012, Luot, Elementxtine, Quenhitran, Monkbot, Ctsgrey, Queenbwest,
Waters.Justin, Astrophobe, KasparBot and Anonymous: 179

10.2 Images
• File:Ambox_rewrite.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Ambox_rewrite.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: self-made in Inkscape Original artist: penubag
• File:Folder_Hexagonal_Icon.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/48/Folder_Hexagonal_Icon.svg License: Cc-by-
sa-3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:People_icon.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/People_icon.svg License: CC0 Contributors: Open-
Clipart Original artist: OpenClipart
• File:Portal-puzzle.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fd/Portal-puzzle.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ?
Original artist: ?
• File:Wikiquote-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Wikiquote-logo.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: ? Original artist: ?

10.3 Content license

• Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0