[WikiEN-l] Another notability casualty

[David Goodman]

Systematically arranged encyclopedias:
Well, checking my references,  a little more than 6 vols., but on the
 principle:

There were.

1.
Encyclopedie francaise, 1935-66 was published in 21 topical volumes. ,
with the contents in each arranged by topic, with an alphabetic index
to each volume: titles were such as
v.2 Physics v.3 Astronomy 4. Life   ...  v.19 Philosophy & religion.
in other words, 21 long articles.
( issued loose-leaf for updating, rather than in bound vols. )

2.Encyclopedie de la Pleaide, 1955-
26 vols.  Examples: v.18 Biology, v., 20 Geography

3. In Spanish  Enciclopia Labor" , 1955-60, in 9 vols., including v. 7
Literature and music, v. 8, arts, sports, games

4. In Dutch, eerste nederlandse systematisch ingericht encyclopedie
1946-53     9.v.  e.g. v.2 literature and the arts, v.3, History
sociology & politics

and in English:
Oxford Junior encyclopedia. 1964  13 v.  , such as v.8: Engineering,
v.9 recreation , but with the articles arranged alphabetically within
each vol.




David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Gwern Branwen <gwern0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 7:31 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7 March 2010 00:00, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <abd at lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
>>> Onus? No, I'm seeing masses of highly experienced editors leaving the
>>> project, with those replacing them being relatively clueless, as to
>>> the original vision, which was itself brilliant but incomplete.
>>
>> You aren't allowing for the typical length of intense participation in
>> *any* online environment typically being 18-24 months (MMORPGs, etc),
>> and that the stated reason may not be the reason.
>
> This, incidentally, allows for a third option to Abd's dilemma: an
> editor can just be patient.
>
> Here's a personal example, lightly fictionalized (because I know that
> if I specify the page and edits, *someone* will take it upon
> themselves to undo them just to make a point).
>
> 3 or 4 years ago, there was a certain controversy, which got written
> up into an article. The article included a chronology with
> referencing/links to the site which first noticed the discrepancy
> which started the whole shebang.
>
> This site was considerably disapproved of, and the Powers That Be
> decreed that links to it were banned, and of course, without the
> referencing links, the initial entries in the chronology were now
> unreferenced & OR* & to be removed. Bans were spoken of.
>
> I gave up on the subject, and instead added a reminder to revisit it
> in a few years' time - roughly 2 of the canonical cycles.
>
> That timer fired a few months ago. I took the material as it was in
> the last removal, and added it back in.
>
> Not one person has commented about or opposed the addition.
>
> * I'll note in passing that OR has policy-creeped considerably since
> the early days; certainly the people who originally were invoking OR
> against Time Cube or Archimedes Plutonium or the electric universe
> would be a little surprised at current usage.
>
> --
> gwern
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>