On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Michel Clasquin wrote:
Forget Britannica. This obsession with "beating" an obsolete concept is something we need to get rid of *fast*.
Why? I want to beat Britannica in terms of quantity and quality, and I think we can do it, given enough time. I want this because I think Britannica is a great encyclopedia, and if we actually do better, we will have achieved something truly extraordinary. It's a goal, stated in terms of a known product.
Instead, let's look at what is going on on WP right now. The people handling the 9-11 reporting are putting up pages for WTC victims.
[...]
This is something new, and I don't think any of us can really predict where it will go. But there is no need to obsess about Britannica. It was a great product in its time, but moving an 18th century concept to the web does not move the concept itself into the 21st.
If I understand you correctly, your point is that we should not limit ourselves by conceiving of our project as *just* following the traditional model of an encyclopedia. With that I fully agree. I probably spend more time "outside the box" than in it, and that probably goes for a lot of people at work on the project. There are many ways in which Wikipedia can be expanded. But I do believe that we should do everything Britannica has done at least as well as Britannica has done it, and that is a fine goal for us to have for now. I also think that, in these early stages, it is essential that we do focus on the task of building an encyclopedia, rather than starting many new different kinds of projects that could enhance the encyclopedia. First we've got to have something really great to enhance, I think. (This isn't to say that the 9/11 pages are unwelcome, of course. I'm glad people are working on them: they aren't in the way, they serve an important public service, and they get more people hooked on Wikipedia!)
Larry