On 5/28/05, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
An oft-used definition of encyclopedia is "compendium of human knowledge", where "compendium" means a summarized collection. On the other hand, my OED defines "encyclopedia" as a "literary work containing extensive information on all branches of knowledge", with no reference to abbreviation or summarization.
I'm aware of this, although it's clear that summarization is implied simply because it is necessary. :)
So we have a situation where reasonable people can differ as to whether summarization is desirable. Empirically, however, I think if one were to take a recent scientific paper and make a WP article embodying every last bit of its content, including charts, tables, statistical methods, experimental technique, etc, most editors would find the result "too detailed". But perhaps when all the summary-type articles are done, this will be the new frontier of development. (anything but endless recategorization, please... :-) )
Right, I don't argue that we don't want to eventually have everything... But rather that it's useful to have a concise resource as well as comprehensive ones, that we should call the concise resource an encyclopedia (since that meshes well with the common use), and that our rules and abilities make us better suited to producing the concise resource first. This doesn't mean I think people should write detailed information, bur rather that they should do whatever they want, but the details stuff probably belongs some place else, such as wikibooks.