[WikiEN-l] Frustrated

[Ray Saintonge]

Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 2/19/07, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>Sure, a list of tall men is crufty.  We have lots of cruft on Wikipedia, so
>>that element is just par for the course.  However, the statement that "Tall
>>is defined by agreement of editors, not by any externally verifiable
>>definition" obviously violates WP:V, which is policy, and WP:NOR.  We can't
>>have a list that lacks criteria for inclusion which are not independent of
>>Wikipedia.
>>    
>>
>Let's step back for a second and pretend we weren't Wikipedia. Imagine
>we're a traditional encyclopaedia produced by a traditional, stuffy
>publishing house. What criteria would they use? My guess is it would
>be one guy picking anyone who seemed worth mentioning, on the basis
>that they'd left some mark on history. World record holders,
>politicians, actors, freaks would be on the list - but only a passing
>mention of basket ball players.
>
I would look at what we are doing as including a combination of the 
traditional encyclopedia and almanac.  A big problem for traditional 
encyclopedias is keeping current.  In the wake of the "Nature" study EB 
complained that they were judged on the basis of some material that was 
found in their yearbooks, which they do not regard as equally 
authoritative to their main volumes.  By the time most basketball 
players or politicians are listed in a traditional encyclopedia  they 
are already retired or dead.  Almanacs help to bridge the gap.  Most are 
published annually, contain many lists, but do not include a great deal 
of explanatory prose.  They will repeat much of what was there in the 
preceding year, corrected for events that have taken place in the interim.

Ec