On Nov 5, 2006, at 7:13 PM, Bryan Derksen wrote:
Phil Sandifer wrote:
On Nov 5, 2006, at 4:46 PM, geni wrote:
Britannica is only one opinion. An encyclopedia of childrens toys would probably come to a different conclusion.
Yes, but we're a general encyclopedia, not a subject encyclopedia, and not a compendium of subject encyclopedias. This is a very important point - especially for popular culture articles.
I disagree, I see no reason why Wikipedia can't be considered a compendium of subject encyclopedias. Wikiprojects already treat it that way in a lot of regards. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Highways springs to mind, I would normally expect to find this sort of thing only in a specialist collection.
I think this is a big misconception, though an understandable one. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia of limitless depth. Due to that, it covers material that would be too esoteric for a paper general collection. But it's approach to all of its topics is that of a general encyclopedia. So even when we have an article on, say, Vermont State Highway 26, the approach is that of a general encyclopedia, not a specialist one. This is a VITAL distinction in terms of understanding what the content of an article should be.
WikiProjects, on the other hand, are social phenomena among editors who want to work on particular areas - equivalent, say, to those editors of an encyclopedia assigned to manage the physical sciences.
-Phil