Gareth Owen wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting that the late Mr.
Bowman, Eagle Scout
and computer specialist is a reasonable target for an article in an
encyclopedia.
Jimbo replied:
In wikipedia, I would say 'yes, unquestionably, absolutely'. Wiki Is
Not Paper. In wikipedia 1.0 for print/dvd, etc., then we will face
constraints that we don't face on wikipedia proper.
I wouldn't have much interest in working on such an article, but I see
absolutely no problem with it.
I am flabbergasted. Those articles are so far from the principles of
encyclopedic content as to be mindboggling. I am more than a little
surprised that Jimbo could see /any/ justification /whatsoever/ for keeping
them. The absence of paper is nothing to do with it. There are certain
things that are utterly and completely irrelevant to encyclopedias. Follow
Jimbo's argument about paper and should a medical book about colon cancer
also include articles on Manchester United, a biography of George Bush also
mention mosquitos, a non-paper book on Napoleon's sex life mention DW's
edits of sports pages on wikipedia?
Would they do so? Of course not. A medical book or a biography only can
contain what is relevant, irrespective of whether there is room to contain
something else. Ditto with encyclopedias. The above articles have no
relevance to encyclopedic content. Normal coverage of atrocities don't even
mention each individual victims, let alone give them /individual/
biographical entries that tell us they were a disco-dancer. What next?
Include details of how long Tsar Nicholas like to grow his nail on his left
big toe? Give details of who made Eamon de Valera's glasses? Discuss the
weaving pattern used to make Mother Teresa's garments. Come of it. That
approach would be to encyclopedias what the Muppet Show is to studying
animal husbandry.
If so, then there is such little common ground
between what we think
belongs in an encyclopedia, that further discussion is worthless.
I'd be intrigued to see the opinions of others.
O.k., there's mine. :-) But I hope that further discussion is not
really worthless.
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get
McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963