What Wikipedia is not (was: Re: [WikiEN-l] Here's an interesting one)

Mon Jan 30 12:11:29 UTC 2006

On 1/30/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>You can say Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia anyone can
> edit, but some people don't seem to grasp the idea of what an encyclopedia is

I have to say I don't like the insinuation I have sometimes seen that
people who don't know what encyclopaedias are are somehow inferior,
stupid or un-educated. I confess that I have had very minimal contact
with encyclopaedias. My parents had an out of date Funk & Wagnalls
which I sometimes looked at when I was young, and my school had an out
of date World Book. Never in secondary school or university did I ever
consult one, a brief flirtation with Encarta aside.

So I suspect that screaming "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia" fails to
resonate with a lot more people than just me. And constant references
to and comparisons with Encyclopaedia Britannica, as if we all had a
copy of the most expensive printed work in history at home, don't help
matters either.

So by all means, create more links to Wikipedia in 8 words, or direct
people there, or make WP:NOT contain a more explicit definition of
what an encyclopaedia is. But please don't join the unhelpful chorus
of people who think that chanting "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia"
explains everything. Because it doesn't.

Whew. That wasn't meant to be a rant. Honest :)

(On second thoughts, I don't think you *were* joining that unhelpful
chorus. But let this be a warning to others...or...something.)

Steve