Daniel Mayer wrote:
Gesh... Another post about something I've done.
I'm
sure Jimbo is becoming convinced that I am a troll or
even worse. :(
Oh, no, not at all. I'm not mad or anything.
Sorry, I wasn't here for these
earlier discussions and was therefore working under
the premise that wikipedia at least was trying to
become an encyclopedia in some modern sense of the
word. That definition being; "The circle of arts and
sciences; a comprehensive <i>summary</i> of the entire
range of human knowledge, or of a branch of knowledge;
esp., a work in which the various branches of science
or art are discussed separately."
I think that's a good definition of what we're trying to do. In
particular, we aren't a random text repository (though sometimes
having some texts stored here can be o.k.), we aren't a humor site
(though we hopefully aren't dull and dry, either, we aren't a
generally discussion and commentary site (although there is a lot of
discussion and commentary).
So there is such a thing as something be "not encyclopedic" and
therefore "not suitable for wikipedia".
Usually in a summary we leave out the non-essential
parts and players.
*nod* I agree with this. For example, there's no need for an article
about my mom, fine woman though she is. But unlike paper
encyclopedias, there is a lot of room here, so we can be more
expansive.
One of the things that a future "qualification process" might do is
flag or rate articles based on both quality and "importance", so that
reproductions in media with space constraints might find some guidance
as to what to leave out.
I guess I can now write that article about my boss
that I have been
wanting to write for several months -- she isn't widely known
outside of her very narrowly focused field but has been very
important in trying to advance the application of a particular type
of transit-oriented smart growth strategy by working from within
California's bureaucracy.
That's probably fine. This is a good example of the kind of article
that is probably good in wikipedia-the-website but that might be left
out in a paper production based on our good work.
Similarly, articles about the mayors and city councilpersons of the
umpteen zillion small towns of the world. Why not include them in the
wikipedia?
I never wrote it before because I thought
others would think that it would be un-encyclopedic and delete
it. But if allowing the minor players is allowed, then I'm all for
it -- but I think that the people and things we cover <i>do</i> have
to be players in at least some sense (I don't think we want to
become geocities or be responsible for spreading misinformation or
propaganda, right?). maveric149
I think that's right.
I don't think there is a simple answer to these questions. I think
that what to include is a tough question, and opinions will differ.
--Jimbo