[WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

[The Cunctator]

On 2/27/07, T P <t0m0p0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/27/07, John Lee <johnleemk at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > So you are saying that if a field is completely forgotten or outmoded,
> > even
> > if we have the secondary sources to back us up and our encyclopaedia is
> > not
> > on paper, we should not be including articles on that field? I'd like some
> > concrete examples - but then again, these are all hypotheticals since
> > nobody's ever written an encyclopaedia and published it in realtime. Then
> > again, could you perhaps point to some topics fifteen years old which you
> > think would not be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia today, but
> > would
> > have been included in Wikipedia by experts at the peak of the topics'
> > fame?
>
>
> I think our reliance on secondary sources does help a lot.
>
> On the other hand, a lot of pop culture is ephemeral.  Minor entertainers
> and video games come to mind.  Do we need an article on Michael Richards'
> racist tirade?  Britney Spears in rehab?  Do we really want articles on the
> latest Paris fashions, each year and every year?

Yes.

> I suppose such information has a certain historical value, but it doesn't
> fit in with my conception of what an encyclopedia should cover.

It's good that you're starting to admit that your desired conception
of WIkipedia differs from what it actually is.