Your position is flawed. What is "enduring" is not the same as what will
be "interesting" to future generations. Enduring to me means, "yet
existing". Some sex toys will be yet existing in 100 years, but I'm sure they
will
all be "interesting" especially to researchers of the use of sex toys which
no longer exist.
And that is the very issue. We need to cover items of historical interest,
not just present. And in doing that, we must cover all items of present
interest because we cannot *presume* to discern what in the future may be of
interest.
The most frustrating thing in genealogy, and biography are those exact
points that persons of that day past, thought wouldnt' be of interest and on
which today major points of contention are yet turning. We should cover
whatever our authors *wish* to cover provided it is written in encyclopedic
language and is balanced in what is presented, not in what *ought* to be
presented. That is covered by SOFIXIT.
We don't have experts in every field, it's doubtful we ever will. We
shouldn't denigrate those articles in fields x y and z simply because no expert
in field a b or c is present.
In a message dated 9/18/2010 12:59:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
peter.damian(a)btinternet.com writes:
"There will always be more television programmes,
long playing records,
popular beat combos and innovative sex toys than there will be Einsteins,
paradigm shifting scientific discoveries and philosophical enquiries." -
of
course but don't confuse that point with the question of which of these
subjects should be included in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia should
have
a bias towards what is enduring.