[WikiEN-l] Bad And Wrong Policy/Procedure/Guideline Hitlist

Mon Nov 6 13:35:42 UTC 2006

On 06/11/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:

> > I disagree, I see no reason why Wikipedia can't be considered a
> > compendium of subject encyclopedias. Wikiprojects already treat it
> > that
> > way in a lot of regards.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Highways springs to
> > mind, I would normally expect to find this sort of thing only in a
> > specialist collection.
>
> I think this is a big misconception, though an understandable one.
> Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia of limitless depth. Due to that,
> it covers material that would be too esoteric for a paper general
> collection. But it's approach to all of its topics is that of a
> general encyclopedia. So even when we have an article on, say,
> Vermont State Highway 26, the approach is that of a general
> encyclopedia, not a specialist one. This is a VITAL distinction in
> terms of understanding what the content of an article should be.

Concur entirely.

Our articles should be written from the standpoint of a general
reader; in the unfortunate but rare event the topic is sufficiently
obscure that the general reader isn't going to be able to understand
it, we should have the decency to frame it in a way that still says
"we are a general enyclopedia", to make it clear what it's a subset of
and what knowledge you need for it to make sense.

So this will mean we restate "the obvious" a lot of times; we define
or avoid jargon; we talk about things in a wide context rather than
keeping within a purely biographical remit, or a purely legal remit,
or a purely historical remit, or so on; and, if in doubt, we assume
we're the first thing they've ever seen about the field and they need
a decent and comprehensible primer on it *now*.

We shouldn't be assuming a common subject-related context from our
users, which a specialist encyclopedia can afford to do; this is, when
you think about it, just a corrolary of another of our basic
principles, that we don't assume a cultural or national context on
behalf of our readers. We are an international encyclopedia, not a
compendium of an American one and a British one and an Irish one and
an Indian one (&c, &c) - and, likewise, we are a general encyclopedia,
not a compendium of a historical one and a biographical one and an
engineering one and a legal one and an art one and (&c, &c).

----

As an aside, I have an encyclopedia on the shelf which - whilst
general-purpose - is sufficiently thorough in dealing with Matters
Imperial to have entries somewhat resembling (from memory):
"'Powerful'. First-rate cruiser launched in 1895. Currently in the
Mediterranean Fleet."

I would be curious to know what the most obscure entry anyone else has
found in a general-purpose work is...

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk