One “very senior Wikimedian,” we are told, “came to think of the project as a ‘city built by Asperger’s.’ ”
If you get the paywall, it’s readable at http://archive.today/R2rnW
One “very senior Wikimedian,” we are told, “came to think of the project as a ‘city built by Asperger’s.’ ”
If you get the paywall, it’s readable at http://archive.today/R2rnW
Sometime, less is more, but not for an encyclopedia, which is, by definition, literally supposed to contain all knowledge. The previous encyclopedias were limited by their volume, as they must be physical, but not Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia wins 100% on this front.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia#Etymology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars
(emphasis mine)
We have limited time in our lives. “Everything” can be the goal of a library collection. An encyclopedia gets the important gist of the “everything” in a practically readable and understandable format, and directs you to other places where you can learn more if needed. A balance has to be struck. Sadly, I guess Wikipedia has become a symbol of all knowledge on the web, since most other places are so dogshit and uninformative, that we can now expect or demand it to do beyond what an encyclopedia should normally do.
I don’t think this is the gotcha you think it is. You posted the etymology which is the origin of the word but not the modern definition.
Def.: Encyclopedia -
a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject
Emphasis is mine.
That’s not really in agreement with your understanding of the encyclopedias either, I’d say. Encyclopedias contain [an unspecified amount of] information on all branches of knowledge. The branches are all of them, yes, but the exact amount of information provided from each subtopic of each branch is not necessarily endless. As the quoted “pillar” says.
It sure is, because my understanding is the dictionary definition. I don’t agree with the commenter you originally replied too either, but your reply, as I said, is not the gotcha you might think it was.