T P wrote:
On 2/26/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/26/07, T P t0m0p0@gmail.com wrote:
All right, I didn't know that. But the point stands that experts in their fields routinely overestimate the importance of their fields.
You do realize that Wikipedia is NOT PAPER, right?
Don't insult me.
Although it was poorly put, I think there's a point in there. EB, due to space limitations, is a general-purpose encyclopedia. But there are plenty of special-purpose ones out there, too. I'm not immediately seeing why Wikipedia can't include just EB topics, but every other special-purpose encyclopedia out there.
Sure, the team who made the Encyclopedia of Polymeric Materials or the Encylopedia of International Political Economy or the Encyclopedia of Fashion Accessories (all real, I swear) think that their topic is pretty important, or they wouldn't have spent years making an encyclopedia. But why would that matter?
If Scott McCloud were making the Encyclopedia of Sequential Art, wouldn't we want an entry on every single topic he thought important enough to include?
William