[Wikipedia-l] Re: A parallel World Wide Web?

Thu Jun 3 16:42:15 UTC 2004

On Thursday, June 03, 2004 1:18 AM
Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:

>> Encyclopedia != "database containing all human knowledge". An
>> encyclopedia is an encyclopedia.
>
> Oh, OK. It's an encyclopedia -- so let's take a look at Wiktionary to
> find out what an encyclopedia is:
>
> A reference work (often in several volumes) containing in-depth
> articles on various topics (often arranged in alphabetical
> order) dealing with a wide range of subjects or with some
> particular specialty.
>
> This doesn't seem to exclude any human knowledge, neither explicitly
> nor implicitly. What parts of human knowledge should in your view not
> be covered in an encyclopedia, and why?

According to the quoted definition an encyclopedia is 'dealing with a
wide range of subjects'. This implicits that each encyclopedia has
to define this range. So let's start thinking about wikipedias range.

I don't think that we are able to draw an exact line (somewhere between
the [[left screw of the rear break of the bicycle of Uli Fuchs]] and the
[[Mona Lisa]]). But at least an idea where this line could be would help
us a lot in beeing an encyclopedia and not just a parallel World Wide
Web.

Arne
[[de:Benutzer:Akl]]