May I join in and say what wikipedia "looks to me" after about a year of trying to "synchronize" my thoughts with the views of the existing authors/editors/reviewers. In case of a debate on labels, headings and titles, in fact, all names (or in other words, categories), such as this one on hand is, the resolution of conflict comes from two steps: a) move one level up, and use a term that covers the items below (this case reference book - which can only be used figurativey here) b) change over to defining the phenomenon first, that may be done again differently, e.g. bb) metaphoricaly cc) using a simile dd) changing scale, etc.
In case of wikipedia, after tracking a number of branches, you will have pardoned me, it is a) a table of contents on "nothing", except that some lines in the TOC are further pointers to URLS, etc. out in deep space b) it is a semi-finished colouring book with clolours of uneven intensity c) it is a number of diligent tube-sighted people caught in the process of lace-making, etc. with a constantly moving target in mind.
The problems, as I see them, include a) uneven use of "scale" b) no check for completeness on a particular level c) the prosecution of thoughts and ideas embeded in free-flowing texts by wikifying such passages.
an encyclopedia should give you the impression of the "whole", which is a circle, a circular (loop) arrangement of the constituents as opposed to branches the current dwelling on a hierarchy (TOC view). The idea of recursion applied on HL level cannot be bypassed, neither can the circular (roll round in one level)arrangement of data be unwisely spared. If you do not believe me, look at your cellular phone.
"rots of rock",
apogr
----- Original Message ----- From: "Anthere" anthere9@yahoo.com To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 7:29 AM Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia
Daniel Mayer a écrit:
--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Just for the record, I think Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia. ant
Just for the record, you are mistaken. Have you seen all the niche
topics we
cover in great detail?
-- mav
It is *not* because they exist that I approve them. My thoughts still have the right to be mine, and I do not believe you have the right to tell me that my thoughts are mistakes. A personal opinion is never a mistake, what would be a mistake here would be to force this opinion on others.
My feeling is that Wikipedia *should* be a general encyclopedia, but I am certainly not gonna remove great articles which go into details. Of course not.
Allow me to not necessarily agree by default with what is currently done.
We obviously do not have the same feeling toward what Wikipedia should be exactly. On some points, we have consensus, such as Wikipedia is not a forum of discussion. On others, it is not so obvious. The claim en.wikipedia is not a dictionnary is not a claim I personnally recognise as valid, because the french tradition is to mix dictionnaries and encyclopedia much more than english-speaking people do. As far as I am concerned, all encyclopedic articles should contain dictionnary information.
However, some people do not think so and I recognise they are benefits to the existence of wiktionnaries as well, mostly for translation I think. Still, the two projects, encyclopedia and wiktionnaries are strongly overlapping sometimes, and *two* projects exist nonetheless. And I saw very few people objecting to the wiktionary existence, nor to the overlap.
Consequently, let me repeat I think Wikipedia SHOULD be a general encyclopedia, and articles thought for rather general public, ie, avoid going in length into jargon and very detailed information. Which is why I am not entirely happy with the idea of filling up the article on the tiger with all the information we are talking about. An article on tiger should be kept relativement simple itself.
I perfectly agree for detailed semi-professional articles to stay in Wikipedia. I wrote a couple of them. However, they should be rather in separate articles, the main one staying readable for most readers. The more detailed ones being seen as "to go further".
If you fill up the tiger article with very detailed information, you will flood the average reader. If the detailed information is in another article, more specialised, only the specialist will go and read it, and the casual reader will not get scared. The detailed article could be on Wikipedia or on another project, it does not matter very much, as long as the two projects are tightly linked. But all info in one article is just a bad idea. Imho.
Anthere
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l