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