Andrew Venier wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Speculation is not proof. The "Guinness Book of World Records" has been consistent best seller in the past century, as was Joseph P. Haydn's "Dictionary of Dates" during the previous century. Both contained an enormous amount of trivia.
Other consistent non-fiction best sellers of the past century include Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People" and "The Better Homes and Gardens Cookbook". Being a bestseller does not make a work instructive as to what an encyclopedia ought to contain.
I don't think that the Carnegie book had the kind of structure that would lead to the kind of debates about "encyclopedic" that we have tended to have. We have, however, had considerable debate about whether recipes should be included in Wikipedia.
You have reversed my argument. They were not encyclopedic because they were bestsellers; rather thay became bestsellers because they were encyclopedic. With events like the recent hurrican Katrina it is not unusual for people to ask, "What was the biggest previous hurrican?" or "Were there any other famous hurricanes that began with the letter 'K'?" You underestimate the thirst that people may have for information that may otherwise be trivial or useless. If they can come to us to discover these things that they could not find anywhere they will come back. We need only insure that even our trivial information is verifiable.
Ec