[Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate

[geni]

On 24 October 2010 21:17, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> No I haven't.  I drew the line in the sand based on the fact that
> Wikipedia is not a fixed work.  I also pointed out that even the
> Wikipedia article on Wikipedia doesn't say that Wikipedia is an
> encyclopedia, it says that it is an "encyclopedia project".  I then
> went on to compare the reliability of Wikipedia to that of
> encyclopedias.

Err you are aware that this mailing list is archived and people can
see the order in which you introduced your arguments?

Still moving on you bring up the claim that wikipedia is not an
encyclopedia because it is not a fixed work (which is a change from
your original position that wikipedia was not in fact a work).

Now this brings up that obvious problem that by your definition the
encyclopedia Britannica is not in fact an encyclopedia since it has
published multiple editions. Now I suppose you could get around that
by arguing that say EB1911 is an encyclopedia however than in turn
gives up the problem that by that logic wikipedia 24 October 2010
20:28 and some seconds is an encyclopedia. Encarta with it's online
updates could also be mentioned here. More recently Britannica online
has been increasing it's rate of updates.


-- 
geni