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

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(a)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/