[WikiEN-l] WP:EPISODE

[John Lee]

On Dec 21, 2007 2:04 PM, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21/12/2007, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > However. When it is possible to have a complete set, completing the
> > set has value. We have EVERY census location in the US. EVERY SINGLE
> > ONE. The "encyclo-" bit means covering the lot. When simplifying as
> > much as possible, take care not to go simpler.
>
> Ah, yes, I'm fond of beating this drum :-)
>
> When we have 90% or 95% of a set, the remaining 5% in many ways are
> significant and worth writing about simply for the value in having a
> complete set.
>
> A reference source where you know you can get information - even if
> "this only existed for two weeks, in 1957, and didn't do anything" -
> on every single example of something becomes in effect a specialist
> encyclopedia on that topic *as well* as a general-purpose
> encyclopedia; if you only list the notable elements it's hit and miss
> and you can't rely on finding information.
>
> Which is why we have articles on tiny townships, on nonentity
> politicians, on Popes who never even got ordained and died after five
> weeks*. Because being able to say "we have them *all*" makes us a
> better encyclopedia.

For some reason this reminds me a lot of the [[interesting number]]
paradox - let's say certain numbers are interesting (whatever that
means - you could use "notable" too!), and certain numbers aren't. But
in that case, is it not the case that one interesting aspect of the
uninteresting numbers is that they are uninteresting?

Johnleemk