I truly don't get it. I personally own a print set of the Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition, as well as the current Britannica on CD. But I also must own at least a dozen specialized "encyclopedias" that cover narrow topics of interest to me in depth.
I thought that there was consensus that Wikipedia a) is an encyclopedia, and b) is not "an indiscriminate collection of information." If so, Wikipedia has bounds, set not by disk space, but by a shared vision of what should be in a general-purpose encyclopedia.
What's so bad about dedicated organizations creating Wikipedia-like encyclopedias devoted to in-depth coverage of narrower topics? How is this different from Wikipedia breaking off "sister projects?"
As far as the end-user is concerned, if you want specialized knowledge of webcomics it makes sense to go to Comixpedia. And if you do a Google search on some relatively obscure webcomic that is in Comixpedia but not Wikipedia, it will find it for you just as effectively as if it had been in Wikipedia.
This sounds like a Good Thing to me.
I mean, it's not like "I, my Wikipedia, am a jealous Wiki. Thou shalt have no other Wikis." How do specialized Wiki-based encyclopedias hurt us in any way?
dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
I truly don't get it. I personally own a print set of the Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition, as well as the current Britannica on CD. But I also must own at least a dozen specialized "encyclopedias" that cover narrow topics of interest to me in depth.
I thought that there was consensus that Wikipedia a) is an encyclopedia, and b) is not "an indiscriminate collection of information." If so, Wikipedia has bounds, set not by disk space, but by a shared vision of what should be in a general-purpose encyclopedia.
What's so bad about dedicated organizations creating Wikipedia-like encyclopedias devoted to in-depth coverage of narrower topics? How is this different from Wikipedia breaking off "sister projects?"
As far as the end-user is concerned, if you want specialized knowledge of webcomics it makes sense to go to Comixpedia. And if you do a Google search on some relatively obscure webcomic that is in Comixpedia but not Wikipedia, it will find it for you just as effectively as if it had been in Wikipedia.
This sounds like a Good Thing to me.
I mean, it's not like "I, my Wikipedia, am a jealous Wiki. Thou shalt have no other Wikis." How do specialized Wiki-based encyclopedias hurt us in any way?
Not in the least, if they are GFDL'd, as their more notable and encyclopedic material can be beamed up to the mothership in due course.
-- Neil
On 15/09/05, dpbsmith@verizon.net dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
I thought that there was consensus that Wikipedia a) is an encyclopedia, and b) is not "an indiscriminate collection of information."
I must say, I'm sure I've read: "Imagine a world where every single person is given free access to the sum of human knowledge. We don't have to imagine it. We're doing it" attributed to Jimbo, and I have never squared that with "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information."
Personally, I don't mind indiscriminate information - that's what the whole world wide web is. Search engines like Google have made it their mission to make it usable, and I don't see why Wikipedia need be any different in our little web-within-the-web. (Tagging - which is what our categorisation could be seen as - seems to be the other approach, but as far as I can tell that's more hype than useful).
Dan
On 9/15/05, Dan Grey dangrey@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/09/05, dpbsmith@verizon.net dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
I thought that there was consensus that Wikipedia a) is an encyclopedia, and b) is not "an indiscriminate collection of information."
I must say, I'm sure I've read: "Imagine a world where every single person is given free access to the sum of human knowledge. We don't have to imagine it. We're doing it" attributed to Jimbo, and I have never squared that with "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information."
Personally, I don't mind indiscriminate information - that's what the whole world wide web is. Search engines like Google have made it their mission to make it usable, and I don't see why Wikipedia need be any different in our little web-within-the-web. (Tagging - which is what our categorisation could be seen as - seems to be the other approach, but as far as I can tell that's more hype than useful).
Dan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You must know how much rubbish google searches tend to bring them all up. You also appear to have forgotten that there is more than one wikimedia project.
Dan Grey wrote:
On 15/09/05, dpbsmith@verizon.net dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
I thought that there was consensus that Wikipedia a) is an encyclopedia, and b) is not "an indiscriminate collection of information."
I must say, I'm sure I've read: "Imagine a world where every single person is given free access to the sum of human knowledge. We don't have to imagine it. We're doing it" attributed to Jimbo, and I have never squared that with "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information."
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think Jimbo said the second one as well.
Personally, I don't mind indiscriminate information - that's what the whole world wide web is. Search engines like Google have made it their mission to make it usable, and I don't see why Wikipedia need be any different in our little web-within-the-web. (Tagging - which is what our categorisation could be seen as - seems to be the other approach, but as far as I can tell that's more hype than useful).
That violates [[WP:NOT]].
On 15/09/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Dan Grey wrote:
On 15/09/05, dpbsmith@verizon.net dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
I thought that there was consensus that Wikipedia a) is an encyclopedia, and b) is not "an indiscriminate collection of information."
I must say, I'm sure I've read: "Imagine a world where every single person is given free access to the sum of human knowledge. We don't have to imagine it. We're doing it" attributed to Jimbo, and I have never squared that with "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information."
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think Jimbo said the second one as well.
Personally, I don't mind indiscriminate information - that's what the whole world wide web is. Search engines like Google have made it their mission to make it usable, and I don't see why Wikipedia need be any different in our little web-within-the-web. (Tagging - which is what our categorisation could be seen as - seems to be the other approach, but as far as I can tell that's more hype than useful).
That violates [[WP:NOT]].
You miss my point. I'm not quite sure why we have WP:NOT, or what people feel the need for it.
Put it this way: I have the hypothesis that "[[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:V]] dictate perfectly what should and should not be in WP". Someone prove that wrong, and I'll come up with a new hypothesis based on that result :-).
Dan
On 15/09/05, Dan Grey dangrey@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/09/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Dan Grey wrote:
On 15/09/05, dpbsmith@verizon.net dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
I thought that there was consensus that Wikipedia a) is an encyclopedia, and b) is not "an indiscriminate collection of information."
I must say, I'm sure I've read: "Imagine a world where every single person is given free access to the sum of human knowledge. We don't have to imagine it. We're doing it" attributed to Jimbo, and I have never squared that with "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information."
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think Jimbo said the second one as well.
Personally, I don't mind indiscriminate information - that's what the whole world wide web is. Search engines like Google have made it their mission to make it usable, and I don't see why Wikipedia need be any different in our little web-within-the-web. (Tagging - which is what our categorisation could be seen as - seems to be the other approach, but as far as I can tell that's more hype than useful).
That violates [[WP:NOT]].
You miss my point. I'm not quite sure why we have WP:NOT, or what people feel the need for it.
Put it this way: I have the hypothesis that "[[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:V]] dictate perfectly what should and should not be in WP". Someone prove that wrong, and I'll come up with a new hypothesis based on that result :-).
*!#& I wish e-mail had an "edit" tab. I meant "why people feel the need for it", of course.
Dan
Dan Grey wrote:
I have the hypothesis that "[[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:V]] dictate perfectly what should and should not be in WP". Someone prove that wrong
Suppose your hypothesis were true. Then there would be no disagreement on what should and should not be in WP. Contradiction. QED.
Timwi wrote:
Dan Grey wrote:
I have the hypothesis that "[[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:V]] dictate perfectly what should and should not be in WP". Someone prove that wrong
Suppose your hypothesis were true. Then there would be no disagreement on what should and should not be in WP. Contradiction. QED.
Where is the contradiction exactly? Metaphysical semantics?
The hypothesis was that "[[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:V]] dictate perfectly what should and should not be in WP". Find something which fails one of them and everyone agrees we should have an article on, and you have disproved the hypothesis. Until then, don't waste my time or anybody else's.
Alphax wrote:
Timwi wrote:
Dan Grey wrote:
I have the hypothesis that "[[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:V]] dictate perfectly what should and should not be in WP". Someone prove that wrong
Suppose your hypothesis were true. Then there would be no disagreement on what should and should not be in WP. Contradiction. QED.
Where is the contradiction exactly? Metaphysical semantics?
No, logic. Adding rigour:
Suppose the hypothesis were true. Then there would be no disagreement on what should and should not be in WP. Then there would be no discussion about it. Yet AfD as well as assorted talk pages are filled with endless such discussions. Therefore, the hypothesis is false. QED.
The hypothesis was that "[[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:V]] dictate perfectly what should and should not be in WP".
This hypothesis is true only if *both* | (A) "Everything that satisfies both [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:V]] should be in WP" *and* | (B) "Everything that fails either [[WP:NOR]] or [[WP:V]] should not be in WP" are true.
Find something which fails one of them and everyone agrees we should have an article on, and you have disproved the hypothesis.
Yes, because this disproves subhypothesis B.
Alternatively, find something which *doesn't* fail *any* of the two, and yet *not* everyone agrees we should have an article on it, and you have also disproved the hypothesis (by disproving subhypothesis A). Examples for this exist en masse.
Timwi
Timwi wrote:
Alphax wrote:
Timwi wrote:
Dan Grey wrote:
I have the hypothesis that "[[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:V]] dictate perfectly what should and should not be in WP". Someone prove that wrong
Suppose your hypothesis were true. Then there would be no disagreement on what should and should not be in WP. Contradiction. QED.
Where is the contradiction exactly? Metaphysical semantics?
No, logic. Adding rigour:
Suppose the hypothesis were true. Then there would be no disagreement on what should and should not be in WP. Then there would be no discussion about it. Yet AfD as well as assorted talk pages are filled with endless such discussions. Therefore, the hypothesis is false. QED.
Well, I know that the hypothesis is false at present, because we haven't agreed that the terms outlined should be binding. How about in the future? If overnight the it was agreed that "The critera for whether we an article should stay or not is that it satisfies both [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:V]]", would the hypothesis then be true?
The hypothesis was that "[[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:V]] dictate perfectly what should and should not be in WP".
This hypothesis is true only if *both* | (A) "Everything that satisfies both [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:V]] should be in WP" *and* | (B) "Everything that fails either [[WP:NOR]] or [[WP:V]] should not be in WP" are true.
I agree.
Find something which fails one of them and everyone agrees we should have an article on, and you have disproved the hypothesis.
Yes, because this disproves subhypothesis B.
Alternatively, find something which *doesn't* fail *any* of the two, and yet *not* everyone agrees we should have an article on it, and you have also disproved the hypothesis (by disproving subhypothesis A). Examples for this exist en masse.
That's because we haven't tried it yet. Take a snapshot, go through and remove everything which violates [[WP:NOR]] or [[WP:V]] (and include everything which meets both) and tell me what you have. Then we will see if the hypothesis is true or not.
Alphax wrote:
I have the hypothesis that "[[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:V]] dictate perfectly what should and should not be in WP". Someone prove that wrong
Well, I know that the hypothesis is false at present,
Aaah. Well, that casts quite a different light on your stance.
If overnight [...]
So now we're talking about a what-if, i.e. a hypothetical scenario. Yes, if overnight we suddenly agreed on everything and there was no longer any need for any discussion, then Wikipedia (and indeed the whole world) would be a much more pleasant environment (and a much easier one to be productive in). But people don't all agree and never will.
would the hypothesis then be true?
That question is tautologous. :)
That's because we haven't tried it yet. Take a snapshot, go through and remove everything which violates [[WP:NOR]] or [[WP:V]] (and include everything which meets both) and tell me what you have. Then we will see if the hypothesis is true or not.
It's your parenthesis that is the important part. I don't think there is much that violates NOR or V at the moment, so there's not much to remove. But including everything which meets both means including a lot of things (schools, roads, people, etc.) that people quite vocally deem _not notable_. NOR and V are relatively objective criteria, but notability is quite a lot less so, and there will never be a hard-and-fast rule (algorithm) that determines boolean notability.
Timwi
Timwi wrote:
Alphax wrote:
I have the hypothesis that "[[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:V]] dictate perfectly what should and should not be in WP". Someone prove that wrong
<snip>
That's because we haven't tried it yet. Take a snapshot, go through and remove everything which violates [[WP:NOR]] or [[WP:V]] (and include everything which meets both) and tell me what you have. Then we will see if the hypothesis is true or not.
It's your parenthesis that is the important part. I don't think there is much that violates NOR or V at the moment, so there's not much to remove. But including everything which meets both means including a lot of things (schools, roads, people, etc.) that people quite vocally deem _not notable_. NOR and V are relatively objective criteria, but notability is quite a lot less so, and there will never be a hard-and-fast rule (algorithm) that determines boolean notability.
Maybe we need a "notability review board" consisting of experts from different subject areas.
On 9/17/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe we need a "notability review board" consisting of experts from different subject areas.
We don't even have a consensus on notability, outside biographical articles, so any such review board would have few teeth. In any case I think we have enough artificial obstacles to content as it is.
I'm in favor of a relaxed attitude to notability. Readers twenty years hence, or two hundred, will not care much whether professor X or politician Y was or was not considered notable in 2005, but the encyclopedia article about him will remain a valuable resource nevertheless.
The mere fact we're getting unexpandable dictionary definitions, memorial articles and all the kind of crap described in WP:NOT makes it clear to me we still need it. I don't really see it as contradiction to WP:V and WP:NOR but as an addition to explain those policies to non-Wikipedians in plain English.
--Mgm
I understand Timwi's point - my hypothesis fails practically because that's not what's happening. So would this be a better hypothesis:
"Notability - and hence what is and is not included in Wikipedia - is decided by whoever is voting on AfD at any given moment."
This isn't a hidden dig or anything - I'm just trying to reach the core of some of these issues.
Dan
PS: "NOR and V are relatively objective criteria, but notability is quite a lot less so, and there will never be a hard-and-fast rule (algorithm) that determines boolean notability." - how I wish there was :-). My brain seems to like things like that more than "softer" rules.
On 9/15/05, Dan Grey dangrey@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/09/05, dpbsmith@verizon.net dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
I thought that there was consensus that Wikipedia a) is an encyclopedia, and b) is not "an indiscriminate collection of information."
I must say, I'm sure I've read: "Imagine a world where every single person is given free access to the sum of human knowledge. We don't have to imagine it. We're doing it" attributed to Jimbo, and I have never squared that with "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information."
Personally, I don't mind indiscriminate information - that's what the whole world wide web is. Search engines like Google have made it their mission to make it usable, and I don't see why Wikipedia need be any different in our little web-within-the-web. (Tagging - which is what our categorisation could be seen as - seems to be the other approach, but as far as I can tell that's more hype than useful).
I do mind indiscriminate information. I mind it very much. However, I find a large gap between "information" and "knowledge", so I don't find the statements at all incongruent. Just as there's a difference between raw data and information, I see a similar gap between information and knowledge, although strict dictionary definitions don't show them quite as distinct. My personal view is that data is raw, information is data organized to become useful, and knowledge implies an understanding of the information.
I do think that the mission of giving "free access to sum of human knowledge" absolutely demands that we address far more topics than any conventional encyclopedia has ever considered, even including a proportional number of "silly" topics.