Andrew Venier wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Speculation is not proof. The "Guinness
Book of World Records" has
been consistent best seller in the past century, as was Joseph P.
Haydn's "Dictionary of Dates" during the previous century. Both
contained an enormous amount of trivia.
Other consistent non-fiction best sellers of the past century include
Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People" and "The
Better Homes and Gardens Cookbook". Being a bestseller does not make
a work instructive as to what an encyclopedia ought to contain.
I don't think that the Carnegie book had the kind of structure that
would lead to the kind of debates about "encyclopedic" that we have
tended to have. We have, however, had considerable debate about whether
recipes should be included in Wikipedia.
You have reversed my argument. They were not encyclopedic because they
were bestsellers; rather thay became bestsellers because they were
encyclopedic. With events like the recent hurrican Katrina it is not
unusual for people to ask, "What was the biggest previous hurrican?" or
"Were there any other famous hurricanes that began with the letter
'K'?" You underestimate the thirst that people may have for information
that may otherwise be trivial or useless. If they can come to us to
discover these things that they could not find anywhere they will come
back. We need only insure that even our trivial information is
verifiable.
Ec