[Foundation-l] Forking the Wiki

[Scott Nelson]

On Jan 6.2005, at 00:41, Daniel Mayer wrote:

>> Why would these people not just be included in the Wikipedia?
>
> Because encyclopedias only deal with notable people, things and 
> events. And no,
> this is not just a matter of space but about the goal and purpose of 
> that type
> of reference work.

Right. Sure. I understand that. Merriam Webster apparently doesn't, 
instead defining an Encyclopaedia as:
>  a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or 
> treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in 
> articles arranged alphabetically often by subject

and WordNet (Princeton, accessed through Apple's Sherlock tool) says 
this:
> n : a reference work (often in several volumes) containing articles on 
> various topics (often arranged in alphabetical order) dealing with the 
> entire range of human knowledge or with some particular specialty

Even if one accepts your original statement as truth, this type of 
reference work is also traditionally ivory tower driven, and the 
Wikipedia has fundamentally changed that: it's a democratic encylopedia 
(with good and bad impacts.)

So why bind a tool which is clearly designed to break down some of the 
traditions by rigorously sticking to others?

Wikipedia is not an "encyclopedia" in the traditional sense. It's 
owned, edited, and contributed to by the world at large. The same can't 
be said for Britannica, or any other of the traditional 
Encyclopaedia's.

Of course, if the answer is "we choose not to stretch THAT particular 
rule" then I respectfully understand, but disagree and choose to 
occasionally see it as somewhat silly, in a good natured way.
--
Skot Nelson
skot at penguinstorm.com