The more I think about it, the less I like my own idea. The dictionaries available on the net now are great resources, even if they are a bit thin on technical detail. That kind of technical detail is exactly what Wikipedia/Nupedia are designed to create, and splitting the project further will surely result in duplication of effort and less cross-linking. Furthermore, it reinforces the distinction between "dictionary" and "encyclopedia" which I still see as an artificial one.
Here's another suggestion: once we get version 0.92 of the Wiki software, Cliff promises us parentheses. We can recommend that information about words themselves be placed in pages like "Mathematics (word)". That page can go into excruciating detail about the etymology of the word, various senses, and usage (perhaps seeded by the now-PD 1913 Webster or the soon-to-be-PD 1928 OED), while the page "Mathematics" treats the subject of the word's primary sense, so that ad-hoc links go to the right place. These primary pages can contain links to the (word) page if appropriate. 0
Dear Larry and all
On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 10:25:44AM -0700, lcrocker@nupedia.com wrote:
The more I think about it, the less I like my own idea. The dictionaries available on the net now are great resources, even if they are a bit thin on technical detail. That kind of technical detail is exactly what Wikipedia/Nupedia are designed to create, and splitting the project further will surely result in duplication of effort and less cross-linking. Furthermore, it reinforces the distinction between "dictionary" and "encyclopedia" which I still see as an artificial one.
I agree because the distinction has its root in physical constraints of paper based works. The important thing about computer based collections is that they have the potential to be any mix between a dictionnary and an encyclopedia. What we need is features which emulates the qualities of both.
It means advanced kind of search, or better page selections and sorting. Easy Links, RecentChanges and Basic Search are great when creating pages in a browsing manner, but not adapted to other kinds of queries and lookup.
Here's another suggestion: once we get version 0.92 of the Wiki software, Cliff promises us parentheses. We can recommend that information about words themselves be placed in pages like "Mathematics (word)". That page can go into excruciating detail about the etymology of the word, various senses, and usage (perhaps seeded by the now-PD 1913 Webster or the soon-to-be-PD 1928 OED), while the page "Mathematics" treats the subject of the word's primary sense, so that ad-hoc links go to the right place. These primary pages can contain links to the (word) page if appropriate. 0
I agree with the necessity to distinguish pages, but I am not sure that surcharging the title in that way is the correct thing to do.
What about an extension of the wiki syntax, like the #REDIRECT, which would allow to categorize pages, (the title would be changed accordingly) and would allow to narrow search on the wiki database ? #WORD #LANGUAGE=SWAHILI
Olivier
In haste...
I've explained on Wikipedia how I regard the difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia is, and that there is good reason, not founded merely in paper, for the distinction. Mere assertions to the contrary are not persuasive.
However, I do think that it's an interesting idea to find some *consistent* way to mark all mere dictionary-type entries in Wikipedia. I think that could be a good way to solve the problem I raised on Wikipedia about the difference between an encyclopedia and a dictionary.
Obviously, as I said, I can't be responsible for this project. :-) If it happens, unless Jimbo specifically asks me to do it, I won't be the one to make the executive decisions.
Larry
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org