T P wrote:
On 2/26/07, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/26/07, T P <t0m0p0(a)gmail.com> wrote:
All right, I didn't know that. But the point
stands that experts
in their fields routinely overestimate the importance of their fields.
You do realize that Wikipedia is NOT PAPER, right?
Don't insult
me.
Although it was poorly put, I think there's a point in there. EB, due to
space limitations, is a general-purpose encyclopedia. But there are
plenty of special-purpose ones out there, too. I'm not immediately
seeing why Wikipedia can't include just EB topics, but every other
special-purpose encyclopedia out there.
Sure, the team who made the Encyclopedia of Polymeric Materials or the
Encylopedia of International Political Economy or the Encyclopedia of
Fashion Accessories (all real, I swear) think that their topic is pretty
important, or they wouldn't have spent years making an encyclopedia. But
why would that matter?
If Scott McCloud were making the Encyclopedia of Sequential Art,
wouldn't we want an entry on every single topic he thought important
enough to include?
William
--
William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri