Poor, Edmund W wrote:
I would like to have a page of article titles which (a)
Columbia Concise
has but (b) Wikipedia doesn't. It would stimulate us to find existing
articles or to write new articles.
This would be a good idea in any case. And same goes for a comparison
with Britannica or Americana.
Exactly. These should never be anything more than useful tools.
Someone has raised the question of whether using Columbia's list of
articles would be a copyright violation. Probably yes, but why would we
want to use it that way in the first place? It should be nothing more
than a long series of ideas to consider, rather than a model for
organizing Wikipedia.
On the other hand, speed is not of the essence. There
is no prize for
being quick. My goal is accuracy and thoroughness, not "how fast can we
beat those guys".
The prospect of a print edition in the near future should not spur
people into a massive production campaign designed to quickly fill ALL
the gaps. There will be plenty of time to fill these for future editions.
Remember, it takes the paid professionals a decade or
more to prepare a
new edition. We started with nothing more than Larry's outline!!
Let's be fair. Those other encyclopedias had to cope with the problem
of Parkinsonian work expansion. Or at least the corollory: Work
expands to accomodate available salaries.
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
User ID #188 <=== I am one of the first 200 people to sign up!!!!
At #372, that makes me almost half your age.
Ec