On 5/18/05, Tony Sidaway <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> wrote:
Gregory, is there something about your Zarus we should
know?
The claim has been made over and over again by you and by others that
there is no reason to consider size at all in matters dealing with
wikipedia. I've cited my little computer (which many other people
have, and have wikipedia on as well), as a simple little example of
why it can and does matter. It's not the only example, but it's a good
example of why it matters to *me* rather than some hypothetical issue
that people would argue matters to no one.
Why is it
important to Wikipedia that we ensure that the English Wikipedia remains
small enough to fit on a portable computer?
Because the vast majority of the world does not spend most of their
life in front of a computer that is well connected to the Internet.
Over time this is changing somewhat, but it will remain true that the
amount of potential use for wikipedia while near a good internet link
will stay much smaller than the total potential use for wikipedia away
from such connectivity.
I travel routinely and have introduced quite a few people on airplanes
and in airport terminals to wikipedia via my portable computer.
Perhaps one of them is now subscribed and would like to chime in? I
would not be shocked.
If size is a problem, have
you thought of filtering out a few categories that you don't like, or
those articles which are smaller than, say, 2kb? I'm sure you'l find a
way to cram all the articles you're likely to want to read onto a nice fat
Zarus, if you only use a filter to decide which articles to take with you.
Right, but the one criteria that would be most useful is notability
and I can't achieve that without reading every article and adding
metadata. Working alone I wouldn't be as good at task as the
community. I'm not too interested in popular culture, but it would be
very useful to have the most notable subset of articles in that area
with me... and there have been plenty of times where an article under
2kb saved my butt!
On the subject of road junctions, there are probably
quite a few on
Wikipedia already. Oh yes, here we go:
[snip]
It's about a great big pole stuck in the ground.
It's amazing what kinds of things you can write a good encyclopedia
article about.
I have never suggested that schools or road junctions or anything else
are categorically not notable. But rather we should not be encouraging
the creation of (or blocking the removal of) nonnotable articles. Nor
do I argue that it wouldn't be lovely to document every little bit of
documentable thing out there.. I'd love to know why there is a funny
little concrete obelisk in the water retention pond near my home, and
I suspect something like that might end up in an ultimate collection
of trivia... But I do not believe such trivia belongs mixed in with
the rest of wikipedia any more than dictionary definitions belong.
I could write a quite through article on the slim mold in the back of
my refrigerator (well providing I could talk some grad students into
researching it, or some OPed columnist into writing about it since
we're so adverse to original research), but no amount of facts,
hyperlinks, measurements, charming prose, or photographs would make it
into a good encyclopedia article. .... Unless, of course, it gained
sentience.. but if that was going to happen it probably would have
already.