Christopher Mahan wrote:
--- Jason Williams jason@jasonandali.org.uk wrote:
Unfortunately that is not the case if Wikipedia still clings to the notion that it would cover human knowledge. The only requirement for that is to be humans. Tigers and whales can set up their "Tigers and Whales" encyclopedia.
Try putting some emphasis on *knowledge* as well...
To deny access to wikipedia who do not conform to 20th century western academic standards would deny, oh, roughly, 90% of the human race from participating. In which case, it would not be an encyclopedia of the human knowledge, but rather a wanna-be encyclopedia with only 10% of human knowledge.
"The earth is flat" is not human knowledge. "Some people believe the earth is flat" is. If 90% of the human race don't know the diameter of earth, it will suffice to write down that knowledge of the 10% remaining. It could also be mentioned that most people don't know the diameter of earth, but their not-knowing (or assuming something wrong) is *not* knowledge in itself, and can therefore not be counted.
It's sort of like saying: all persons have inalieanble rights yet only citizens have access to lawyers free of charge. Pretty silly huh?
Your comparison, yes.
Magnus