[WikiEN-l] All information?

Thu Sep 15 16:49:18 UTC 2005

On 15/09/05, Dan Grey <dangrey at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15/09/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dan Grey wrote:
> > > On 15/09/05, dpbsmith at verizon.net <dpbsmith at verizon.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>I thought that there was consensus that Wikipedia a) is an encyclopedia, and
> > >>b) is not "an indiscriminate collection of information."
> > >
> > >
> > > I must say, I'm sure I've read: "Imagine a world where every single
> > > person is given free access to the sum of human knowledge. We don't
> > > have to imagine it. We're doing it" attributed to Jimbo, and I have
> > > never squared that with "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection
> > > of information."
> > >
> >
> > Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think Jimbo said the second one as well.
> >
> > > Personally, I don't mind indiscriminate information - that's what the
> > > whole world wide web is. Search engines like Google have made it their
> > > mission to make it usable, and I don't see why Wikipedia need be any
> > > different in our little web-within-the-web. (Tagging - which is what
> > > our categorisation could be seen as - seems to be the other approach,
> > > but as far as I can tell that's more hype than useful).
> > >
> >
> > That violates [[WP:NOT]].
> 
> You miss my point. I'm not quite sure why we have WP:NOT, or what
> people feel the need for it.
> 
> Put it this way: I have the hypothesis that "[[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:V]]
> dictate perfectly what should and should not be in WP". Someone prove
> that wrong, and I'll come up with a new hypothesis based on that
> result :-).

*!#& I wish e-mail had an "edit" tab. I meant "why people feel the
need for it", of course.

Dan