On 5/12/07, Kurt Maxwell Weber <kmw(a)armory.com> wrote:
On Friday 11 May 2007 22:40, Steve Bennett wrote:
Because an encyclopaedia
that had an entry on every single band ever formed would not be
particularly interesting or valuable, compared to one that had an
entry on every band of some notability.
How does having more information make an encyclopedia less valuable?
That's patently insane.
Encyclopaedia A has an entry on every band of some level of interest.
Put the bar low if you like, like every band that has even recorded
and released a CD, or played in any public venue.
Encyclopaedia B has an entry on every band ever. Even a bunch of
school kids that played in their mum's garage, and never ventured into
public.
Encyclopaedia C has an entry on every "notable" skifield.
Encyclopaedia D has an entry on every skifield.
I contend that B is at best as useful as A. It is not significantly
more useful than A.
I contend that D is much more useful than C.
I contend that B creates a lot more headaches than A. It is more work
to maintain, and is more subject to spam and wp:blp problems.
I contend that D does not create a lot more headaches than C. The
extra burden is minimal.
Steve