From: Andre Engels on Friday, December 12, 2003 5:36 AM On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, The Cunctator wrote:
<snip>
But we should not have *as a goal* different priorities, different discussions of the same content. The goal, as Ruimi said, is to try
to
reach universalism.
I disagree. Strongly. If universalism as a goal is made official, I'm out of here. I find this one of the problems with Wikipedia as it currently is (although there are other, even greater problems). I do not think Wikipedia should tell everything about everything. An encyclopedia should select and summarize information.
This is all we'd have to do, I suspect, to make sure that we do work towards the ultimate goal of universalism and consistency.
Your ultimate goal is not mine. Farewell.
I won't even get into that. The idea that slightly different ideas about what the perfect Wikipedia would be in the far future is enough to make you leave is, frankly, bizarre.
I think you also misinterpreted what I meant by universalism.
From the dictionary,
u.ni.ver.sal: 1. Of, relating to, extending to, or affecting the entire world or all within the world; worldwide: "This discovery of literature has as yet only partially penetrated the universal consciousness" (Ellen Key). 2. Including, relating to, or affecting all members of the class or group under consideration: the universal skepticism of philosophers. 3. Applicable or common to all purposes, conditions, or situations: a universal remedy. 4. Of or relating to the universe or cosmos; cosmic. 5. Knowledgeable about or constituting all or many subjects; comprehensively broad.
Huh. That's strange, I have trouble finding some definition which seems antithetical to what you've said are your goals.
By the way, what I (and I suspect Ruimi) specifically mean by having universalism as a goal for Wikipedia is that my goal is for Wikipedia to be applicable or common to all purposes, conditions, or situations.