[Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

[Peter Damian]

To Notbod's long note.

To say Wikipedia's coverage is 'frighteningly large' is not the same as 
saying its coverage is 'even'.

On the list here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Core_topics_-_1,000 
I have looked at Philosophy and nearly all the 11 articles there are 
horrifyingly bad.  What sort of encyclopedia has no decent entry on 
Philosophy?  Even the article [[Philosophy]] is a disaster.  I have already 
noted the problem about [[Existence]].  On Religion, there is still no 
decent article on Theology.  Science mathematics and technology are probably 
OK, as I have already noted (the problem is with the humanities).  [[Logic]] 
is a disaster and I have long been planning (with Charles Stewart) a 
rewrite.

"There will always be more television programmes, long playing records, 
popular beat combos and innovative sex toys than there will be Einsteins, 
paradigm shifting scientific discoveries and philosophical enquiries." - of 
course but don't confuse that point with the question of which of these 
subjects should be included in an encyclopedia.  An encyclopedia should have 
a bias towards what is enduring.  What subjects will interest readers of the 
encyclopedia in 100 years time?  I am not saying to ignore the trivial and 
ephemeral, but rather to give to emphasise what is truly enduring and 
notable from the POV of posterity.

But thanks at least for addressing the subject of this thread and not 
subjecting me to a tirade of abuse  :)

Regards,

Peter