Hey everyone,
I usually troll on here, reading, but not participating in discussions, but I wanted to ask something. Old English is a dead language, yet has a living Wikipedia. For this wiki, we essentially use Early West Saxon, but the original language never had a single standard spelling. What does everyone think about using a standardized spelling for this language, as used in the Clark Hall dictionary of Anglo Saxon? I welcome any comments.
James
Hoi, As Old English is dead language, a Wikipedia can only be created by modifying the language with newly created words. This makes the language different from what the language used to be. Standardising a dead language by imposing a particular orthography in order to write new content in that language also morphs the language into something that it never was.
There is a Wikipedia in Old English and I regret this.
Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 1:39 PM, James Robert Johnson modean52@comcast.net wrote:
Hey everyone,
I usually troll on here, reading, but not participating indiscussions, but I wanted to ask something. Old English is a dead language, yet has a living Wikipedia. For this wiki, we essentially use Early West Saxon, but the original language never had a single standard spelling. What does everyone think about using a standardized spelling for this language, as used in the Clark Hall dictionary of Anglo Saxon? I welcome any comments.
James
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 6:39 AM, James Robert Johnson modean52@comcast.net wrote:
Hey everyone,
I usually troll on here, reading, but not participating indiscussions,
The word is "lurk." "Troll" means something else.
And I think that is what somebody else is doing on this thread.
The Old English Wikipedia exists, it is not going anywhere soon, so let's stop criticising it, shall we?
Now, what is the standard for writing Old English within the scholarly community? If there is no consensus, which system is the most widely used? There is your answer.
Mark
On 02/04/2008, Mike R tacodeposit@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 6:39 AM, James Robert Johnson modean52@comcast.net wrote:
Hey everyone,
I usually troll on here, reading, but not participating indiscussions,
The word is "lurk." "Troll" means something else.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 02/04/2008, James Robert Johnson modean52@comcast.net wrote:
Hey everyone,
I usually troll on here, reading, but not participating indiscussions, but I wanted to ask something. Old English is a dead language, yet has a living Wikipedia. For this wiki, we essentially use Early West Saxon, but the original language never had a single standard spelling. What does everyone think about using a standardized spelling for this language, as used in the Clark Hall dictionary of Anglo Saxon? I welcome any comments.
If we're going to have an Old English Wikipedia, some level of standardisation is probably required (although it's not essential to always spell words the same - see the modern English Wikipedia's policy on British English vs American English). However, such a standardisation is inherently very difficult to achieve, which is one of the reasons we don't create Wikipedia's for extinct languages any more.
I wouldn't dedicated too much effort to the Old English Wikipedia if I were you. Who's going to read it? You're just producing learning aids for people learning the language, you're not really creating an encyclopaedia.
Shame on you. You should never tell people not to create content. If that's what he wants to do, let him do it in peace. Don't tell him he shouldn't.
Mark
On 02/04/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/04/2008, James Robert Johnson modean52@comcast.net wrote:
Hey everyone,
I usually troll on here, reading, but not participating indiscussions, but I wanted to ask something. Old English is a dead language, yet has a living Wikipedia. For this wiki, we essentially use Early West Saxon, but the original language never had a single standard spelling. What does everyone think about using a standardized spelling for this language, as used in the Clark Hall dictionary of Anglo Saxon? I welcome any comments.
If we're going to have an Old English Wikipedia, some level of standardisation is probably required (although it's not essential to always spell words the same - see the modern English Wikipedia's policy on British English vs American English). However, such a standardisation is inherently very difficult to achieve, which is one of the reasons we don't create Wikipedia's for extinct languages any more.
I wouldn't dedicated too much effort to the Old English Wikipedia if I were you. Who's going to read it? You're just producing learning aids for people learning the language, you're not really creating an encyclopaedia.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 02/04/2008, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Shame on you. You should never tell people not to create content. If that's what he wants to do, let him do it in peace. Don't tell him he shouldn't.
Why not? I don't see how creating that content furthers the aims of Wikipedia, so why shouldn't I advise him against creating it?
2008/4/2, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com:
Shame on you. You should never tell people not to create content. If that's what he wants to do, let him do it in peace. Don't tell him he shouldn't.
The issue of extinct and constructed languages is one of the perennial arguments in the Wikipedian culture.
You may find links to earlier discussions about it here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages
Hoi, As far as the language committee is concerned, there is agreement that new extinct languages will not be approved. The fact that they have been approved before the language committee was started is the only reason why we have an Old English Wikipedia. One of the best demonstrations why extinct languages are so problematic is the "decision" of the Gothic Wikipedia to write in the Latin script because otherwise it is so difficult. It clearly shows how big a divide there is between what a language used to be and what it becomes because of ill conceived ideas. The consequence is that reading this travesty does not teach you at all to read historic texts and consequently it does not add to the learning of the language and consequence the reason for this Wikipedia is largely negated. Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@gmail.com wrote:
2008/4/2, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com:
Shame on you. You should never tell people not to create content. If that's what he wants to do, let him do it in peace. Don't tell him he shouldn't.
The issue of extinct and constructed languages is one of the perennial arguments in the Wikipedian culture.
You may find links to earlier discussions about it here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni
English - http://aharoni.wordpress.com Hebrew - http://haharoni.wordpress.com
"We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace." - T. Moore
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 02/04/2008, James Robert Johnson modean52@comcast.net wrote:
Hey everyone,
I usually troll on here, reading, but not participating in discussions, but I wanted to ask something. Old English is a dead language, yet has a living Wikipedia. For this wiki, we essentially use Early West Saxon, but the original language never had a single standard spelling. What does everyone think about using a standardized spelling for this language, as used in the Clark Hall dictionary of Anglo Saxon? I welcome any comments.
on 4/2/08 12:05 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I wouldn't dedicated too much effort to the Old English Wikipedia if I were you. Who's going to read it? You're just producing learning aids for people learning the language, you're not really creating an encyclopaedia.
So much for creativity and innovation, Thomas :-(. A person is usually advised not to attempt something because of possible negative effects and/or outcome. Is that the case here? I think not.
Sounds like a worthwhile project to me.
Marc Riddell
2008/4/2, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net:
So much for creativity and innovation, Thomas :-(. A person is usually advised not to attempt something because of possible negative effects and/or outcome. Is that the case here? I think not.
Sounds like a worthwhile project to me.
If someone says that Wikipedia is not a good place for a certain article, language, or any other kind of project, it doesn't mean that a project isn't worthwhile.
A huge number of people are frustrated when confronted with Wikipedian policy on Notability and Original Research, or, in this case, with the Meta policy on starting new language projects.
Is it something about the Wikipedia brand? Is it so strong? Do people think that if the community of Wikipedia editors rejects something, then it is such a tragedy?
Seriously - there are excellent alternatives for content which doesn't fit into Wikipedia. Wikia and Everything2 spring to mind, and there are obviously many more sites.
I wouldn't dedicated too much effort to the Old English Wikipedia if I were you. Who's going to read it? You're just producing learning aids for people learning the language, you're not really creating an encyclopaedia.
So much for creativity and innovation, Thomas :-(. A person is usually advised not to attempt something because of possible negative effects and/or outcome. Is that the case here? I think not.
The negative effects are the loss of his time. That's only really a negative effect for him, so if he wants to go ahead anyway, I'm not going to try and stop him, but if I were him, I wouldn't waste time on it.
Sounds like a worthwhile project to me.
What will it achieve? In particular, how will it further out goal to provide the sum of human knowledge to people?
I wouldn't dedicated too much effort to the Old English Wikipedia if I were you. Who's going to read it? You're just producing learning aids for people learning the language, you're not really creating an encyclopaedia.
So much for creativity and innovation, Thomas :-(. A person is usually advised not to attempt something because of possible negative effects and/or outcome. Is that the case here? I think not.
on 4/2/08 1:11 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The negative effects are the loss of his time. That's only really a negative effect for him, <snip>
How many innovators have been cautioned not to waste their time on something? I would think that would be for him to be concerned about.
Sounds like a worthwhile project to me.
What will it achieve? In particular, how will it further out goal to provide the sum of human knowledge to people?
Thomas, you speak of "sum" as though it were finite. It's about discovery, perhaps the greatest of purposes.
Marc
Marc, Exactly in a dead language you do NOT want innovation because as a consequence it is no longer that language. Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
I wouldn't dedicated too much effort to the Old English Wikipedia if I were you. Who's going to read it? You're just producing learning aids for people learning the language, you're not really creating an encyclopaedia.
So much for creativity and innovation, Thomas :-(. A person is usually advised not to attempt something because of possible negative effects
and/or
outcome. Is that the case here? I think not.
on 4/2/08 1:11 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The negative effects are the loss of his time. That's only really a negative effect for him, <snip>
How many innovators have been cautioned not to waste their time on something? I would think that would be for him to be concerned about.
Sounds like a worthwhile project to me.
What will it achieve? In particular, how will it further out goal to provide the sum of human knowledge to people?
Thomas, you speak of "sum" as though it were finite. It's about discovery, perhaps the greatest of purposes.
Marc
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Gerard,
Your point is well taken. But I am not talking about "innovating" the language, but creating a project to discover more about it.
Marc
on 4/2/08 1:43 PM, Gerard Meijssen at gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Marc, Exactly in a dead language you do NOT want innovation because as a consequence it is no longer that language. Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
I wouldn't dedicated too much effort to the Old English Wikipedia if I were you. Who's going to read it? You're just producing learning aids for people learning the language, you're not really creating an encyclopaedia.
So much for creativity and innovation, Thomas :-(. A person is usually advised not to attempt something because of possible negative effects
and/or
outcome. Is that the case here? I think not.
on 4/2/08 1:11 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The negative effects are the loss of his time. That's only really a negative effect for him, <snip>
How many innovators have been cautioned not to waste their time on something? I would think that would be for him to be concerned about.
Sounds like a worthwhile project to me.
What will it achieve? In particular, how will it further out goal to provide the sum of human knowledge to people?
Thomas, you speak of "sum" as though it were finite. It's about discovery, perhaps the greatest of purposes.
Marc
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 02/04/2008, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Gerard,
Your point is well taken. But I am not talking about "innovating" the language, but creating a project to discover more about it.
That would be the purpose of the [[Old English]] article on other Wikipedias.
Hoi, You do not discover about a language when in the process you change it beyond recognition. The correct word for such an endeavour is called reconstruction. When we tell people we have a Wikipedia in a language and people turn to it in order to learn that language, we do them a disservice. This is quit against what the Wikimedia Foundation stands for because in this way we do not provide valid information. Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Gerard,
Your point is well taken. But I am not talking about "innovating" the language, but creating a project to discover more about it.
Marc
on 4/2/08 1:43 PM, Gerard Meijssen at gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Marc, Exactly in a dead language you do NOT want innovation because as a consequence it is no longer that language. Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86@comcast.net
wrote:
I wouldn't dedicated too much effort to the Old English Wikipedia if
I
were you. Who's going to read it? You're just producing learning
aids
for people learning the language, you're not really creating an encyclopaedia.
So much for creativity and innovation, Thomas :-(. A person is
usually
advised not to attempt something because of possible negative effects
and/or
outcome. Is that the case here? I think not.
on 4/2/08 1:11 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The negative effects are the loss of his time. That's only really a negative effect for him, <snip>
How many innovators have been cautioned not to waste their time on something? I would think that would be for him to be concerned about.
Sounds like a worthwhile project to me.
What will it achieve? In particular, how will it further out goal to provide the sum of human knowledge to people?
Thomas, you speak of "sum" as though it were finite. It's about
discovery,
perhaps the greatest of purposes.
Marc
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
This is something you have been preaching and I have to say, it is absolutely untrue.
There are ways to refer to new concepts without creating words that do not exist in the existing literature. For example, Navajo did not invent a new word to refer to a computer, instead it is called "metal that you write with with a mind of its own" (this is very long-winded, even in Navajo, so most people will just call it a "computer", however the terminology exists and it is not a made-up new word). For example, the Hebrew word for electricity comes from a Biblical word that means an aura.
Languages are meant to adapt and be elastic. As long as we are not adding made-up words to a language (for example if I created a word "computerious" in Ancient Greek to mean "computer"), we can still write about modern concepts without extending vocabulary beyond its limits. This has been done before and it continues to be done.
Mark
On 02/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Marc, Exactly in a dead language you do NOT want innovation because as a consequence it is no longer that language. Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
I wouldn't dedicated too much effort to the Old English Wikipedia if I were you. Who's going to read it? You're just producing learning aids for people learning the language, you're not really creating an encyclopaedia.
So much for creativity and innovation, Thomas :-(. A person is usually advised not to attempt something because of possible negative effects
and/or
outcome. Is that the case here? I think not.
on 4/2/08 1:11 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The negative effects are the loss of his time. That's only really a negative effect for him, <snip>
How many innovators have been cautioned not to waste their time on something? I would think that would be for him to be concerned about.
Sounds like a worthwhile project to me.
What will it achieve? In particular, how will it further out goal to provide the sum of human knowledge to people?
Thomas, you speak of "sum" as though it were finite. It's about discovery, perhaps the greatest of purposes.
Marc
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hoi, Marc are you suggesting that Navajo is an extinct language? Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 9:48 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
This is something you have been preaching and I have to say, it is absolutely untrue.
There are ways to refer to new concepts without creating words that do not exist in the existing literature. For example, Navajo did not invent a new word to refer to a computer, instead it is called "metal that you write with with a mind of its own" (this is very long-winded, even in Navajo, so most people will just call it a "computer", however the terminology exists and it is not a made-up new word). For example, the Hebrew word for electricity comes from a Biblical word that means an aura.
Languages are meant to adapt and be elastic. As long as we are not adding made-up words to a language (for example if I created a word "computerious" in Ancient Greek to mean "computer"), we can still write about modern concepts without extending vocabulary beyond its limits. This has been done before and it continues to be done.
Mark
On 02/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Marc, Exactly in a dead language you do NOT want innovation because as a consequence it is no longer that language. Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Marc Riddell <
michaeldavid86@comcast.net>
wrote:
I wouldn't dedicated too much effort to the Old English Wikipedia
if I
were you. Who's going to read it? You're just producing learning
aids
for people learning the language, you're not really creating an encyclopaedia.
So much for creativity and innovation, Thomas :-(. A person is
usually
advised not to attempt something because of possible negative
effects
and/or
outcome. Is that the case here? I think not.
on 4/2/08 1:11 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The negative effects are the loss of his time. That's only really a negative effect for him, <snip>
How many innovators have been cautioned not to waste their time on something? I would think that would be for him to be concerned about.
Sounds like a worthwhile project to me.
What will it achieve? In particular, how will it further out goal
to
provide the sum of human knowledge to people?
Thomas, you speak of "sum" as though it were finite. It's about
discovery,
perhaps the greatest of purposes.
Marc
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I never said that.
On 02/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Marc are you suggesting that Navajo is an extinct language? Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 9:48 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
This is something you have been preaching and I have to say, it is absolutely untrue.
There are ways to refer to new concepts without creating words that do not exist in the existing literature. For example, Navajo did not invent a new word to refer to a computer, instead it is called "metal that you write with with a mind of its own" (this is very long-winded, even in Navajo, so most people will just call it a "computer", however the terminology exists and it is not a made-up new word). For example, the Hebrew word for electricity comes from a Biblical word that means an aura.
Languages are meant to adapt and be elastic. As long as we are not adding made-up words to a language (for example if I created a word "computerious" in Ancient Greek to mean "computer"), we can still write about modern concepts without extending vocabulary beyond its limits. This has been done before and it continues to be done.
Mark
On 02/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Marc, Exactly in a dead language you do NOT want innovation because as a consequence it is no longer that language. Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Marc Riddell <
michaeldavid86@comcast.net>
wrote:
> I wouldn't dedicated too much effort to the Old English Wikipedia
if I
> were you. Who's going to read it? You're just producing learning
aids
> for people learning the language, you're not really creating an > encyclopaedia. >
So much for creativity and innovation, Thomas :-(. A person is
usually
advised not to attempt something because of possible negative
effects
and/or
outcome. Is that the case here? I think not.
on 4/2/08 1:11 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The negative effects are the loss of his time. That's only really a negative effect for him, <snip>
How many innovators have been cautioned not to waste their time on something? I would think that would be for him to be concerned about.
Sounds like a worthwhile project to me.
What will it achieve? In particular, how will it further out goal
to
provide the sum of human knowledge to people?
Thomas, you speak of "sum" as though it were finite. It's about
discovery,
perhaps the greatest of purposes.
Marc
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Mark,
I encourage you to go ahead with the work. If you believe in its value, how many others do you need? :-)
Regards,
Marc Riddell
on 4/2/08 3:48 PM, Mark Williamson at node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
This is something you have been preaching and I have to say, it is absolutely untrue.
There are ways to refer to new concepts without creating words that do not exist in the existing literature. For example, Navajo did not invent a new word to refer to a computer, instead it is called "metal that you write with with a mind of its own" (this is very long-winded, even in Navajo, so most people will just call it a "computer", however the terminology exists and it is not a made-up new word). For example, the Hebrew word for electricity comes from a Biblical word that means an aura.
Languages are meant to adapt and be elastic. As long as we are not adding made-up words to a language (for example if I created a word "computerious" in Ancient Greek to mean "computer"), we can still write about modern concepts without extending vocabulary beyond its limits. This has been done before and it continues to be done.
Mark
On 02/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Marc, Exactly in a dead language you do NOT want innovation because as a consequence it is no longer that language. Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
I wouldn't dedicated too much effort to the Old English Wikipedia if I were you. Who's going to read it? You're just producing learning aids for people learning the language, you're not really creating an encyclopaedia.
So much for creativity and innovation, Thomas :-(. A person is usually advised not to attempt something because of possible negative effects
and/or
outcome. Is that the case here? I think not.
on 4/2/08 1:11 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The negative effects are the loss of his time. That's only really a negative effect for him, <snip>
How many innovators have been cautioned not to waste their time on something? I would think that would be for him to be concerned about.
Sounds like a worthwhile project to me.
What will it achieve? In particular, how will it further out goal to provide the sum of human knowledge to people?
Thomas, you speak of "sum" as though it were finite. It's about discovery, perhaps the greatest of purposes.
Marc
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
on 4/2/08 1:11 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The negative effects are the loss of his time. That's only really a
negative effect for him, <snip>
How many innovators have been cautioned not to waste their time on something? I would think that would be for him to be concerned about.
Which is what I said in the part you snipped. Wikipedia is not about innovation - "no original research" ring any bells?
Sounds like a worthwhile project to me.
What will it achieve? In particular, how will it further out goal to provide the sum of human knowledge to people?
Thomas, you speak of "sum" as though it were finite. It's about discovery, perhaps the greatest of purposes.
Discovery would be original research.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org