On 5/28/05, Stan Shebs <shebs(a)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.