82
Wikipedia’s Pyrrhic Victory (www.newyorker.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
52 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

One “very senior Wikimedian,” we are told, “came to think of the project as a ‘city built by Asperger’s.’ ”

If you get the paywall, it's readable at http://archive.today/R2rnW

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] [S] -18 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

I doubt the number of errors is significantly different. The horrible mistakes I've had to correct on WP suggest otherwise, even if that's just anecdotal.

Sometimes, less is more. I don't think we really need trivia from the film set of the Infinity War or whatever. Selecting the most relevant material is an art in itself. A scholarly monograph might be used to dump info; an encyclopedia has to make sense of it for the layman.

Up to date, mostly yes (unless the editors get their info from outdated sources, which does happen), and accessible, definitely.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 21 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

    I do agree that condensing an encyclopedia to a limited size and keeping the most significant information was a very difficult art that was performed admirably by the old encyclopaedias.

    I however think it’s an art that would be innappropriate and harmful if applied to Wikipedia.

    Just because you can condense the information doesn’t mean you should. Encyclopaedias are not for reading through, so limited length was an artificial limitation imposed by the printed format not for any good reason.

    I’m sure there’s articles that go on a bit about irrelevant minutia, and they should be trimmed, but that’s an article specific flaw.

    FWIW I think I misremembered the accuracy point, looks like most studies have put it similar or slightly lower accuracy. Citation needed I guess.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    Sometime, less is more, but not for an encyclopedia, which is, by definition, literally supposed to contain all knowledge. The previous encyclopedias were limited by their volume, as they must be physical, but not Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia wins 100% on this front.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    but not for an encyclopedia, which is, by definition, literally supposed to contain all knowledge

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia#Etymology

    The word encyclopedia comes from the Koine Greek ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία,[13] transliterated enkúklios paideía 'general education', from enkúklios (ἐγκύκλιος) 'circular, recurrent, required regularly, general'[5][14] and paideía (παιδεία) 'education, rearing of a child'

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars

    Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a social network, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a web directory. It is not a dictionary, a newspaper, an instruction manual, nor a collection of source documents or media files, although some of its fellow Wikimedia projects are.

    (emphasis mine)

    We have limited time in our lives. "Everything" can be the goal of a library collection. An encyclopedia gets the important gist of the "everything" in a practically readable and understandable format, and directs you to other places where you can learn more if needed. A balance has to be struck. Sadly, I guess Wikipedia has become a symbol of all knowledge on the web, since most other places are so dogshit and uninformative, that we can now expect or demand it to do beyond what an encyclopedia should normally do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    I don’t think this is the gotcha you think it is. You posted the etymology which is the origin of the word but not the modern definition.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia#Etymology

    Def.: Encyclopedia -

    a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject

    Emphasis is mine.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    That's not really in agreement with your understanding of the encyclopedias either, I'd say. Encyclopedias contain [an unspecified amount of] information on all branches of knowledge. The branches are all of them, yes, but the exact amount of information provided from each subtopic of each branch is not necessarily endless. As the quoted "pillar" says.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago

    That's not really in agreement with your understanding of the encyclopedias either

    It sure is, because my understanding is the dictionary definition. I don’t agree with the commenter you originally replied too either, but your reply, as I said, is not the gotcha you might think it was.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent