[WikiEN-l] specialised encyclopaedias (was Re: To: Jimmy Wales - Admin-driven death of Wikipedia)

Sun Jun 11 07:50:00 UTC 2006

On 6/11/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>
> While still at school, I ran across a /Star Trek: The Next Generation/
> encyclopaedia (it was in the school library, believe it or not).  It
> included descriptions of all characters and their history (that is,
> their real-world history[0] ... how the show's creators went about
> recruiting actors, how they'd originally envisioned the characters[1], etc.

I own the 1999 version of the Star Trek Encyclopaedia, covering the
four series and the nine movies up to that point. It's just like the
one you describe, it's concise and accessible for non-fans (although I
doubt how many non-fans would be reading it - but the point is they
could read it if they wanted).

Importantly, it treated the fictional stuff as "true", like a reader
of an encyclopaedia within the fictional universe would expect, but it
simultaneously presented information about the shows, the actors, etc
alongside the fictional stuff, without each trying to pretend that the
other didn't exist. It's hard to describe, but I think it's a
marvellous example of how encyclopaedias should address fictional
matters.

> I think this qualifies as a specialist encyclopaedia, and I don't see a
> problem with Wikipedia including analogous content --- provided we keep
> in mind that a) it has to be relevant to people who don't already know
> heaps about TNG, and b) it has to stay neutral and not be packed with
> fan theories and other such crud.

Indeed. WP is of course a generalist encyclopaedia, and although it is
not paper, and can include much more material than other generalist
works, we should always be writing for a generalist audience [1].
There are now, of course, specialist wiki encyclopaedias for these
subjects (like Memory Alpha and Wookiepedia) which are a much better
place for specialist content.

[1] Science articles are another area where there are some excellent
articles written so that they can be broadly understood, and others
which are far too detailed for the generalist reader.

-- 
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com