Ulrich Fuchs wrote:
create an
encyclopedia or database containing all the human knowledge.
Of course this aim can never be reached, but it should be approximated
There is a difference between knowledge and information. Wikipedia contains
too much information and too little knowledge. [...]
To say it bluntly, the information contained in a "List of porn actors who
died wearing a hobbit costume" isn't knowledge for 99.999999999% of the
Wikipedia users.
I'm a bit stumped. Where do you draw the line between what you call
"knowledge" and what you call "information"? Who can reliably classify
whether a particular topic constitutes "knowledge" or "information"
(or
what you referred to as "relevant" and "noise")? Your "List of
porn
actors" example is specifically chosen to be an extreme case; I would be
interested to see what you would consider an extreme example on the
other side.
Personally, I don't understand the distinction you are making.
"Knowledge" is when your brain contains the "information".
"Information"
is what your brain can take in to acquire "knowledge". That's how I see
it. Under this definition, we are collecting information, because
Wikipedia itself is not a sentient entity that can have "knowledge".
Knowledge is information that rests if everything
unneeded *is sorted out*.
I'm sure you'll understand that this isn't really a definition, as you
have left open the question of what is "unneeded". Again, I would be
interested to hear an example of what you call "needed".
Timwi