On 2/27/07, T P <t0m0p0(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/27/07, John Lee <johnleemk(a)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.