[WikiEN-l] Is a bad encyclopedia an encyclopedia at all?
Daniel P. B. Smith
dpbsmith at verizon.net
Tue Nov 15 02:16:51 UTC 2005
> No the primary goal is to make a free encyclopaedia. It will be the
> best one
> as a byproduct.
I think that by definition an encyclop[a]edia _needs_ to be pretty
good, or what good is it? If making a _good_ encyclopedia is only a
byproduct, we will find in the end that we do not have an
encyclopedia at all.
As Lewis Carroll observed, a stopped clock is right twice a day, but
unless you know _when_ it is right that does not help you. An
encyclopedia that is 90% accurate is not really an encyclopedia.
Behold, this set of aeronautical charts:
They are surprisingly accurate. The inaccurate parts aren't really a
problem. You can usually tell which they are from their sketchy,
sloppy look. And you probably aren't going to the places that are
inaccurate, anyway. The places people go to a _lot_ tend to be quite
accurate.
The level of detail does vary. Some old-fashioned people think it's
important for traditional maps to have good coverage of JFK Airport,
and our coverage of JFK is, well, a little embarrassing. On the other
hand, our coverage of Walt Disney World and Branson, Missouri is far
better than any commercial set of charts.
We have very good coverage of Atlantis, and a very clear legend next
to it indicating that some people think it exists and some think it
does not.
By the way, be very careful about flying into Gdańsk.
On my next flight, I hope my pilot will not be using these maps.
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
More information about the WikiEN-l
mailing list