On 2/27/07, T P t0m0p0@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/27/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
So you are saying that if a field is completely forgotten or outmoded, even if we have the secondary sources to back us up and our encyclopaedia is not on paper, we should not be including articles on that field? I'd like some concrete examples - but then again, these are all hypotheticals since nobody's ever written an encyclopaedia and published it in realtime. Then again, could you perhaps point to some topics fifteen years old which you think would not be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia today, but would have been included in Wikipedia by experts at the peak of the topics' fame?
I think our reliance on secondary sources does help a lot.
On the other hand, a lot of pop culture is ephemeral. Minor entertainers and video games come to mind. Do we need an article on Michael Richards' racist tirade? Britney Spears in rehab? Do we really want articles on the latest Paris fashions, each year and every year?
Yes.
I suppose such information has a certain historical value, but it doesn't fit in with my conception of what an encyclopedia should cover.
It's good that you're starting to admit that your desired conception of WIkipedia differs from what it actually is.