[WikiEN-l] What are we?

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process that means that Wikipedia is always a work in progress, and not just a fixed document that will eventually be superceded by the next edition.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