On 5/28/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
I disagree (to both). Traditional encyclopaedias may have covered only the "basics" of the subject because they have constraints inherent in print publication. Wikipedia is not paper, and we can cover any subject in any depth we want -- all we need is the volunteers to write it.
I believe that if there is to learn more, then it belongs in Wikipedia too.
Hogwash. When you go into a library it's highly likely that you could go directly to a detailed book on whatever subject you are interested in, but libraries still have encyclopedias.
Readers have finite time, and very many have a literacy level much lower than the typical Wikipedia editor. By making our articles too detailed we run the risk of making the basic information inaccessible to the vast majority of the users who are only interested in the basics.
Furthermore, while Wikipedia is not paper there are many other resources limitations that we face, for example: editors. How can we ensure the accuracy, quality, and NPOVness of a great many very long and detailed articles? Also we are source limited, as an article on a subject becomes increasingly long it becomes increasingly difficult to add to it without engaging in original research. So do have scaling limits of our own.
There is a place in the world for large amounts of detailed material, but this shouldn't be the goal of an encyclopedia. The methods used to create, edit, and maintain very highly detailed works differ from the best methods for a higher level work and the community of editors most likely differs as well.
There is great value in being concise and today we mostly look to an encyclopedia for a concise source.