On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:53 PM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 12 August 2011 20:24, George Herbert
<george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
We still have wide gaps in knowledge coverage.
Not in the most common
areas, but in many specialized areas, where they're not heavily
geek-populated.
Yes but those don't have much to do with normal applications of encyclopedias.
Sure they do. The question is what coverage you want in the encyclopedia.
You may not be a construction guy, but wouldn't it be useful if you
could say "Hmm, what are those standardized 1.5 inch square open metal
channels used everywhere in construction?" and find [[Strut channel]]
on Wikipedia.
And a few thousand other construction things I haven't had time to add, yet.
And engineering.
All these specialized things are encyclopedic, and matter in the
world, even if they're not geek-significant. There's no reason not to
define encyclopedic as inclusive of topics such as these.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com