[WikiEN-l] What are we?

Mon Dec 12 19:32:22 UTC 2005

>Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > > But then again, I have my doubts Wikipedia should be calling itself an
> > > encyclopedia in the first place.

If "encyclopedia" means a compendium of all knowledge (which is what I 
think Diderot and D'Alembert and EB were shooting for), then no 
encyclopedia has ever existed.  EB is itself partial and limited, which is 
why it goes through different editions.  In fact, that a print encyclopedia 
goes through additions, or produces annexes periodically, shows that they 
too are "works in progress."  If I have the Fifth Edition of the Columbia 
encyclopedia, does that mean the first edition was not really an 
encyclopedia?  All so-called encyclopedias are projects of people striving 
to write an encyclopedia.  The work can never be finished.

If "encyclopedia" means material for general study, I'd say we are a 
reasonable encyclopedia.

Of course, Borges's famous story about the Chinese encyclopedia is meant 
(among other things) to question what the word itself could possibly mean.

In any event, I would contest any claim that there exists, even as an 
ideal, a "real" encyclopedia against which we could measure ourselves -- 
and fall short.

Wikipedia proves, like Borges's story, that "encyclopedia" can mean 
different things, and that there is another way for an encyclopedia to be a 
work-in-progress aside from the occasional publication of a revised 
edition.  That is our mark of distinction, the open process that means that 
Wikipedia is always a work in progress, and not just a fixed document that 
will eventually be superceded by the next edition.

To say that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia is only to say that we share the 
ideals of Diderot and D'alembert,however different our means.

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701