[Foundation-l] When is a Wikipedia not a Wikipedia ?

[Pedro Sanchez]

Also, encyclopedias don't usually have humor sections hor do they have
pseudobiographical portions for its writers. They don't have voting
places nor do they usually carry historials nor they have a judicial
court.

So, if wikipedia has all of them besides the encyclopedia itself,
Thomas conclusion is that wikipedia is not an encyclopedia.
But hey "we're talking about main namespace only", well, in this case
the extra content would also be in a different namespace


On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Chad <innocentkiller at gmail.com> wrote:
> Bah, semantics. I think we can almost all agree that an encyclopedia
>  is a general reference work with various sources across a variety of
>  subjects. Just because one encyclopedia decided to add some dictionary
>  definitions or a few quotations to supplement the overall content doesn't
>  make it any less of one.
>
>  A horse wearing a skirt is still a horse.
>
>  -Chad
>
>  On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > > Yes. You couldn't say that an encyclopedia wasn't an encyclopedia
>  >  >  because it included dictionary definitions or even an appendix of
>  >  >  source documents or how-to's.
>  >
>  >  I think you could. Dictionary definitions for common words or words no
>  >  used in the encyclopaedia would be out of place. Likewise, source
>  >  documents not referenced in the encyclopaedia would be. There are
>  >  other words (like "compendium") to describe such collections of
>  >  information.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >  _______________________________________________
>  >  foundation-l mailing list
>  >  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  >  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>  >
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  foundation-l mailing list
>  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>