Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 5/28/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
I disagree (to both). Traditional encyclopaedias may have covered only the "basics" of the subject because they have constraints inherent in print publication. Wikipedia is not paper, and we can cover any subject in any depth we want -- all we need is the volunteers to write it.
I believe that if there is to learn more, then it belongs in Wikipedia too.
Hogwash. When you go into a library it's highly likely that you could go directly to a detailed book on whatever subject you are interested in, but libraries still have encyclopedias.
If you're going to the library anyway, then yes, you might as well go for a specialised book rather than a paper(!) encyclopaedia.
By making our articles too detailed
I said "I think the detail belongs in Wikipedia", not "I think the detail belongs in a Wikipedia article on a more general topic". If I want to write about the Time Hierarchy Theorem, then I will write about it at [[Time Hierarchy Theorem]] and not at [[Computer Science]]. Incidentally, noone has yet suggested to delete [[Time Hierarchy Theorem]], or indeed any other article, for making Wikipedia "too detailed".
we run the risk of making the basic information inaccessible to the vast majority of the users who are only interested in the basics.
People who are only interested in the basics can still look up only the basics. It's a question of organisation, not a question of inclusion.
Furthermore, while Wikipedia is not paper there are many other resources limitations that we face, for example: editors. How can we ensure the accuracy, quality, and NPOVness
We are already facing the problem of ensuring accuracy, quality and NPOVness. Deleting content that makes Wikipedia "too detailed" is not going to help that problem.
There is a place in the world for large amounts of detailed material, but this shouldn't be the goal of an encyclopedia.
Funny, and somehow I thought that the goal of Wikipedia is to "collect the sum of human knowledge".
Timwi