What is an encyclopedia? I expect an encyclopedia to be a reference work where I can quickly find information on many subjects. The information may be more or less extensive and more or less accurate. How would I use an encyclopedia? I would expect to use it to look up information that I would use in my activities or for recreational purposes. The longer our mind is occupied with a given subject the less productive we become. We get bored. If we change to another activity for a while our minds productivity will gradually recover. The encyclopedia may tell how lady GodGifu rode naked through the streets of Coventry more than 1000 years ago, but there may only be records that such a person existed and the ride may only be legend. We would be interested in this legend only for recreational reasons. We have no need or use for the information. We may be interested in medical information because it may help us care for health. Is there danger that information in encyclopedia articles would be used by terrorists? We can have articles about explosives and tell how to make nitroglycerin or other explosives. Of course the articles would not tell where or how to buy the ingredients. How do people think? Often spoken words bring to mind a picture. Years ago I tried an experiment to find out how different people think. I would say is three words, "dog chase cat" and then ask the person to describe the dog. Describe the cat. What else do you see? A schoolgirl in England said that the dog was an English sheep dog standing on its hind feet with its front feet up against a tree. The cat was out of sight up the tree. Where the tree come from? It wasnt mentioned in those three words and wasnt necessary. Writing is tricky business. The impression in the mind of the reader may be quite different from what you intend to convey. Different readers may interpret what you write in different ways depending on their past experiences. A person may be able to visualize a distance stated in feet but not in meters. Readers may not know the meaning of many unfamiliar terms. After you write something put away for a while. When you come back to it later youll notice things that you overlooked before. Now that you are satisfied with it, set it aside and start over new from the beginning. When you get tired of working on it either trash it or send it. Do you agree with my ideas? Merritt L. Perkins
Merritt L. Perkins wrote:
How would I use an encyclopedia? I would expect to use it to look up information that I would use in my activities or for recreational purposes.
I'm going to bang the "OFF TOPIC" gong, but before i do that, I'll say that some people consider reading articles in an encyclopedia a recreational activity in itself. :)
*GONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG*
I disagree with Tarquin's determination that this is off-topic. It is healthy for a project such as this to periodically discuss the nature of an encyclopedia. Even if no concrete action arises from one particular discussion, it still helps in maintaining focus.
Merritt L. Perkins wrote:
What is an encyclopedia? I expect an encyclopedia to be a reference work where I can quickly find information on many subjects. The information may be more or less extensive and more or less accurate. How would I use an encyclopedia? I would expect to use it to look up information that I would use in my activities or for recreational purposes.
An accurate observation that applies to ANY encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are good initial sources of information and broad perspective on a subject. They are certainly not primary sources. A researcher with a serious interest in an article will want to go further. Some of our articles have links to outside sources, but where those links have not been written it is to be hoped that the reader will have acquired enough basic vocabulary to bootstrap his research.
The longer our mind is occupied with a given subject the less productive we become. We get bored. If we change to another activity for a while our minds productivity will gradually recover.
This is more true than many would have us believe. The dilemma is faced by every genius that writes for Wikipedia. In extreme cases of boredom thay become our most prominent vandals. It may also be the key to why Wikipedia works so well.
Over the years I have observed that professionals in many fields adopt a view of that profession that has been narrowed by their educational and formative experience. The professions demand conformity. Alternatives that require unapproved solutions are seriously discouraged,... more seriously when those alternatives work. The requirement that someone be certified (or some word of similar effect) in his profession may ostensibly be to protect the public from fraud and incompetence, but the effect is really to enforce narrow thinking and to protect the privileges of the profession. Fraudulent or otherwise criminal professionals continue to exist; incompetence is encouraged through rule-bound practice.
I have on numerous occasions embarked on a Wikipedia project that I eventually left incomplete. Most of these remain on my personal unpublished to-do list, and I hope to get back to them at some point in the future. The subject areas involved are very broad indeed. This kind of behaviour would be totally unacceptable in an ordinary work environment. It would get me fired.
The remarkable thing is that this kind of behaviour is the norm on Wikipedia, even as it accepts that there are others with a compulsion to bring an article to some relatively complete state. What's more amazing is that the two co-exist quite well with a complementarity that is missing in other environments.
This paradigm has implications beyond Wikimedia. We have harnessed the power of boredom.
The encyclopedia may tell how lady GodGifu rode naked through the streets of Coventry more than 1000 years ago, but there may only be records that such a person existed and the ride may only be legend. We would be interested in this legend only for recreational reasons. We have no need or use for the information.
This sounds like an argument against including such material, despite earlier contradictory views.
We may be interested in medical information because it may help us care for health.
Caveat emptor!
Is there danger that information in encyclopedia articles would be used by terrorists? We can have articles about explosives and tell how to make nitroglycerin or other explosives. Of course the articles would not tell where or how to buy the ingredients.
"Danger" is there in '''everything''' we say, not just in the obvious subjects. What varies most is the responsibility that people accept for what happens in their own lives, and the extraordinary lengths to which they will go to ensure that their security is protected by restricting the freedom of others. The smart terrorist will always be able to think outside the box. If his plans involve the use of explosives, he'll either find a way to get them or change his plans to suit the circumstances. If his plans involve the use of sharp objects where knives are forbidden, he can sharpen the edge of a plastic credit card. (It's not as though he needs something made of fine steel that will keep its edge for many years. ;-) )
Writing is tricky business. The impression in the mind of the reader may be quite different from what you intend to convey. Different readers may interpret what you write in different ways depending on their past experiences.
A feature of good fiction is that it is very adaptable to the reader's ability to visualize or fantasize
Readers may not know the meaning of many unfamiliar terms.
A reasonable proportion can elevate the reader's perspectives. If there are too many the work will remain unread.
After you write something put away for a while. When you come back to it later youll notice things that you overlooked before. Now that you are satisfied with it, set it aside and start over new from the beginning. When you get tired of working on it either trash it or send it.
This laborious process may be essential in a "normal" writing environment. Here, where the individual does not "own" the writing (copyright issues aside) we can be confident that there will always be someon else to find something wrong.
Do you agree with my ideas?
Some
Eclecticology
From: "Merritt L. Perkins" mlperkins3@juno.com
[...] After you write something put away for a while. When you come back
to it
later you'll notice things that you overlooked before. Now that you are satisfied with it, set it aside and start over new from the beginning. [...]
Actually, Merritt, In Wikipedia if I go back to an article I usually noticed that someone added something and I start thinking how interesting it is and howmuch fun it can be to be collaborating like this. Other times I'm flabbergasted and wonder why on earth would someone say this or that only to realize I was the one that said it that way and just forgot about it... ;-)
Since, Jay B. [[User:ILVI]]
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org