[WikiEN-l] Is a bad encyclopedia an encyclopedia at all?

[Daniel P. B. Smith]

> No the primary goal is to make a free encyclopaedia. It will be the
> best one
> as a byproduct.

I think that by definition an encyclop[a]edia _needs_ to be pretty  
good, or what good is it? If making a _good_ encyclopedia is only a  
byproduct, we will find in the end that we do not have an  
encyclopedia at all.

As Lewis Carroll observed, a stopped clock is right twice a day, but  
unless you know _when_ it is right that does not help you. An  
encyclopedia that is 90% accurate is not really an encyclopedia.

Behold, this set of aeronautical charts:

They are surprisingly accurate. The inaccurate parts aren't really a  
problem. You can usually tell which they are from their sketchy,  
sloppy look. And you probably aren't going to the places that are  
inaccurate, anyway. The places people go to a _lot_ tend to be quite  
accurate.

The level of detail does vary. Some old-fashioned people think it's  
important for traditional maps to have good coverage of JFK Airport,  
and our coverage of JFK is, well, a little embarrassing. On the other  
hand, our coverage of Walt Disney World and Branson, Missouri is far  
better than any commercial set of charts.

We have very good coverage of Atlantis, and a very clear legend next  
to it indicating that some people think it exists and some think it  
does not.

By the way, be very careful about flying into Gdańsk.

On my next flight, I hope my pilot will not be using these maps.

--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/