if you have more knowledge on that part, you become more wise on that part, you may be wise at ethics but not on meta-physics or vice-versa, you may be more great in mathematics but not on philosophy...

Are there opportunity costs to gaining knowledge in one area? It seems there are for you cannot then devote that time to gaining knowledge in another area. Specialization is the bane of total wisdom and is wisdom still wisdom when it is not total? Consider Socrates Apology and how he exposed the specialist as less than wise. This is a topic that deserves it's own thread perhaps.

If global wisdom is impossible then we must find some other way...for example a community of specialists that trust each other. Aye there's the rub! that trust! Perhaps finding that community trust is the closest we can approach the global wisdom that even the Socratic gadfly could not undermine. And I propose a collective effort that surpasses even the dreams of Bacon for even the broadest knowledge of positivistic Science is still only a specialization.

One may specialize in 1 branch of knowledge and wisdom, but should have a good basis of common knowledge, else it would have no purpose as your work still needs some kind of relation to others branches of knowledge and wisdom.

I agree. How then do we define that basis of common knowledge? And if one has that basis, is then one wise?

There is no set definition of what it is, but only that "the more the better"

Any opinion on the community of federated specialists together composing and optimum of collective wisdom...your common knowledge seems to constitute a common language for such a community. There might even be a sort of specialist that specializes in the study of this common language.

William ..that's the definition, not what it consist of.

If you don't mind, please explain the difference? If a definition does not explain what a thing consists of then how can we define anything? If we find inconsistencies we redefine it, right? So if we are have difficulty explaining what wisdom is how can we define it. I just related one inconsistency to what WIKI espoused. You are more than welcome to offer yours. If we could indeed find all those inconsistencies then we would know what it is and no longer need a definition, it would be truly definite, huh! Pure, unequivocal, precise and constant. We surely wouldn't quibble, huh?

You seek too narrow premesis for your definition.

Any person can only learn so much, we can't both be body builders, siencetists, doctors, engineers, artists, stock brokers, fighter pilots, psycologists, do all olympic sports ..etc.

One must boil it down to understand the common principles that applies to all things in life, and choose what fits you the best.

Some like quiet things, some like noisy things, some like study the universe, some like study the earth ..sea ..humans ..etc.

..but ofc not lose sight of other things (as mentioned in earlier post)

Broad common knowledge + many deep interests + few specializations.

I guess I was trying to make a movement from "Can you be wiser than you know?" to the question "Can we be wiser than we know?"

Failing to recognize our participation in a collective wisdom would be one way for someone to be wiser than he/she knows.

I just found it interesting. I don't understand the comment: "You seek too narrow premesis for your definition."

It would say only humans are mammals, leaving out thousands upon thousands of other mammal species, that's a too narrow definition.

Still not understanding what you are talking about. What does "It" refer to in the above sentence?