This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I removed the paragraph claiming that cross references and indices were an innovation of encyclopedias during the 18th and 19th centuries. Cross references were already common in medieval manuscripts; does anyone have information about when subject-matter indexes became common? David 21:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
"Projects like the now defunct Nupedia, h2g2, and Wikipedia"
Where did the fictional encyclopedias go? - Roy Boy 800 20:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
This article makes it sound as if encyclopedias were unique to Europe after the middle ages, when this is not true. In Japan, for example, encyclopedic works have been produced constantly since the ninth century C.E. This discussion would benefit from a broader perspective, especially given the fact that encyclopedias purport to encompass all of human understanding.
what was the name of the sciencist that preformed the rock experiment which rock drps fist
Is it a book that we read from the first to the last page? A newspaper, in which we read each article which interest us, from the beginning to the end? A place where we come to get the information that we search? -- Aïki 04:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
While the section above reads like a rant (repeating the "public toilet" bullshit, which has been thoroughly refuted and which a certain former Britannica editor ought to ashamed of), there does seem to be a recent groundswell of opinion among some commentators that trustworthiness (which Wikipedia is alleged to not possess) is a prerequisite to being called an encyclopedia. As I noted in Talk:Wikipedia, the stimulus for much of this seems to be Wikipedia itself--this line of argument seems to be a recent phenomenon, generated as a reaction to Wikipedia. As nothing like Wikipedia has existed before, it isn't entirely surprising that Wikipedia has generated a new line of argument in opposition.
And, to be fair to Wikipedia, turstworthiness is the objection against Wikipedia. Many critics allege we don't have peer review, expert editors, or other things--whereas it is easily shown that Wikipedia does have peer review, editors who are subject-matter experts, etc. in many (most) cases. Ignoring the accusations that are plainly false, questionable, or refutable, the arguments against Wikipedia seem to boil down to the following:
1) Wikipedia doesn't guarantee that each and every article has been vetted by experts and multiple peer reviewers.
2) Many contributors to Wikipedia are pseudonomyous (and some, using IP addresses are outright anonymous).
3) Contributors are unlikely to suffer harm (such as being fired, sued, or suffering professional humiliation or scorn) if they "get it wrong", so they lack incentive to exercise the extreme caution which allegedly guides editors and writers at traditional publications.
Now--the question remains: Should any of the above disqualify WP as an "encyclopedia", or is an encyclopedia merely a compendium of facts about some subject matter, without regard to how those facts are discovered, compiled, and set forth?
Currently, the authoritative definitions of what constitutes an "encyclopedia" (including definitions in existing dictionaries and encyclopedias, excluding WP and Wiktionary), seem to not mention any requirements for a particular editorial model. Most of the suggestions that WP isn't an encyclopedia come from sources who are biased, unauthorative, or both--there's no reason we should give a fig what Andrew Orlowski thinks the proper definition of an "encyclopedia" is; he's not an authority on the subject. For that matter, pronouncements by Britannica editors that aren't part of the Encyclopaedia Britannica proper should also be similarily disregarded; just as claims made by Jimmy Wales concerning the EB wouldn't constitute evidence of anything. Now, if Britannica were to put their money where their mouth is and write an article (doing the necessary research, of course) demonstrating that open-edit publications such as WP don't qualify as encyclopedias, that might be worth looking at. (Of course, Britannica 's neutrality on the subject would be questionable). But at this time, the reliable sources out there advance a definition of "encyclopedia" which most definitely includes Wikipedia.
-- EngineerScotty 17:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm changing the definition in the article of an encyclopedia to more-closely match historical precedent and lexicographical usage. Here's how Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, defines an encyclopedia:
a work that treats comprehensively all the various branches of knowledge and that is usually composed of individual articles arranged alphabetically.
The word comes from the Greek words enkyklios paideia, meaning "general education". [1] However, in the article's lead paragraph, there was no mention of how general encyclopedias deal with all areas of knowledge, so I corrected this. I think the "Wikipedia is not a random collection of information" policy has thrown people off as to what an encyclopedia is versus what Wikipedia chooses to be. Whether Wikipedia wants to differ from what people generally consider an encyclopedia is up to it. Historically, how focused an encyclopedia is has been a function of how much space it has at its disposal. Since Wikipedia, per the WP:NOT page, does not have a "practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability" we can cover just about anything. Encyclopedias always retain roundedness, so they cover the whole world and not just a part of it. For example, the Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana, an 119-volume work almost as large as Wikipedia, has integrated dictionaries of English, German, Spanish, Esperanto, Portuguese, and Italian words. It also has maps of small towns, making it effectively a guide book, as well. Another example would be anything from Larousse, which also contain embedded dictionaries. The Allgemeine Encyclopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste at 162 volumes only halfway completed is certainly larger than Wikipedia. I cited M-W's Third above--the second-largest English-language dictionary. Here's how Encyclopedia Britannica defines an encyclopedia:
Today most people think of an encyclopaedia as a multivolume compendium of all available knowledge, complete with maps and a detailed index, as well as numerous adjuncts such as bibliographies, illustrations, lists of abbreviations and foreign expressions, gazetteers, and so on.
Later in the intro, it says the following:
In this article the word encyclopaedia has been taken to include not only the great general encyclopaedias of the past and the present but all types of works that claim to provide in an orderly arrangement the essence of “all that is known” on a subject or a group of subjects. This includes dictionaries of philosophy and of American history as well as volumes such as The World Almanac and Book of Facts, which is really a kind of encyclopaedia of current information.
Further, here's how the most complete and respected English dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary, defines an encyclopedia (most quotes and etymology omitted, except where needed):
1. The circle of learning; a general course of instruction.
1708 Motteux Rabelais v. xx, In you are lodg’d a Cornucopia, an Encyclopedia, an unmeasurable Profundity of Knowledge.
2. A literary work containing extensive information on all branches of knowledge, usually arranged in alphabetical order.
1841 Myers Cath. Th. iii. ii. 4 The Bible is..by no means indeed an Encyclopædia.
The word in this sense appears first as the title of certain works published in the 17th cent. esp. that of Alstedius (see quot. 1819).
b. Sometimes applied spec. to the French work ‘Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des Sciences, des Arts, et des Métiers’ (1751-1765), by Diderot, D’Alembert, and other eminent scholars and men of science.
3. An elaborate and exhaustive repertory of information on all the branches of some particular art or department of knowledge; esp. one arranged in alphabetical order.
hence
en"cyclo'pædiac a.
[see -ac], = ENCYCLOPÆDIC; . . .
Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. [2]--Jimbo Wales
This is a legitimate spelling. I can be found in the OED, as well as Encyclopædia Britannica. If someone wants to make a sub-section in the article to explain in more detail about it, that's fine. Or even better, in Wiktionary. But the fact is, it's usage can be found in the real world and we report on what the real world does, not what we think the real world should do. -- Stbalbach 17:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
What is a "branch of knowledge"? The lead definition mentions this twice, but the body text has no mention of this. It seems to refer to a very particular idea of how knowledge can be classified and categorized. Unless a reference to "branches of knowledge" is made in the body text, or the "branches" of knowledge described, I would propose to remove these terms.
Pusle8 ( talk) 19:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Encyclopedia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Just a note but there's a draft for an outline of this topic at Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of encyclopedias. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 11:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I removed the paragraph claiming that cross references and indices were an innovation of encyclopedias during the 18th and 19th centuries. Cross references were already common in medieval manuscripts; does anyone have information about when subject-matter indexes became common? David 21:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
"Projects like the now defunct Nupedia, h2g2, and Wikipedia"
Where did the fictional encyclopedias go? - Roy Boy 800 20:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
This article makes it sound as if encyclopedias were unique to Europe after the middle ages, when this is not true. In Japan, for example, encyclopedic works have been produced constantly since the ninth century C.E. This discussion would benefit from a broader perspective, especially given the fact that encyclopedias purport to encompass all of human understanding.
what was the name of the sciencist that preformed the rock experiment which rock drps fist
Is it a book that we read from the first to the last page? A newspaper, in which we read each article which interest us, from the beginning to the end? A place where we come to get the information that we search? -- Aïki 04:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
While the section above reads like a rant (repeating the "public toilet" bullshit, which has been thoroughly refuted and which a certain former Britannica editor ought to ashamed of), there does seem to be a recent groundswell of opinion among some commentators that trustworthiness (which Wikipedia is alleged to not possess) is a prerequisite to being called an encyclopedia. As I noted in Talk:Wikipedia, the stimulus for much of this seems to be Wikipedia itself--this line of argument seems to be a recent phenomenon, generated as a reaction to Wikipedia. As nothing like Wikipedia has existed before, it isn't entirely surprising that Wikipedia has generated a new line of argument in opposition.
And, to be fair to Wikipedia, turstworthiness is the objection against Wikipedia. Many critics allege we don't have peer review, expert editors, or other things--whereas it is easily shown that Wikipedia does have peer review, editors who are subject-matter experts, etc. in many (most) cases. Ignoring the accusations that are plainly false, questionable, or refutable, the arguments against Wikipedia seem to boil down to the following:
1) Wikipedia doesn't guarantee that each and every article has been vetted by experts and multiple peer reviewers.
2) Many contributors to Wikipedia are pseudonomyous (and some, using IP addresses are outright anonymous).
3) Contributors are unlikely to suffer harm (such as being fired, sued, or suffering professional humiliation or scorn) if they "get it wrong", so they lack incentive to exercise the extreme caution which allegedly guides editors and writers at traditional publications.
Now--the question remains: Should any of the above disqualify WP as an "encyclopedia", or is an encyclopedia merely a compendium of facts about some subject matter, without regard to how those facts are discovered, compiled, and set forth?
Currently, the authoritative definitions of what constitutes an "encyclopedia" (including definitions in existing dictionaries and encyclopedias, excluding WP and Wiktionary), seem to not mention any requirements for a particular editorial model. Most of the suggestions that WP isn't an encyclopedia come from sources who are biased, unauthorative, or both--there's no reason we should give a fig what Andrew Orlowski thinks the proper definition of an "encyclopedia" is; he's not an authority on the subject. For that matter, pronouncements by Britannica editors that aren't part of the Encyclopaedia Britannica proper should also be similarily disregarded; just as claims made by Jimmy Wales concerning the EB wouldn't constitute evidence of anything. Now, if Britannica were to put their money where their mouth is and write an article (doing the necessary research, of course) demonstrating that open-edit publications such as WP don't qualify as encyclopedias, that might be worth looking at. (Of course, Britannica 's neutrality on the subject would be questionable). But at this time, the reliable sources out there advance a definition of "encyclopedia" which most definitely includes Wikipedia.
-- EngineerScotty 17:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm changing the definition in the article of an encyclopedia to more-closely match historical precedent and lexicographical usage. Here's how Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, defines an encyclopedia:
a work that treats comprehensively all the various branches of knowledge and that is usually composed of individual articles arranged alphabetically.
The word comes from the Greek words enkyklios paideia, meaning "general education". [1] However, in the article's lead paragraph, there was no mention of how general encyclopedias deal with all areas of knowledge, so I corrected this. I think the "Wikipedia is not a random collection of information" policy has thrown people off as to what an encyclopedia is versus what Wikipedia chooses to be. Whether Wikipedia wants to differ from what people generally consider an encyclopedia is up to it. Historically, how focused an encyclopedia is has been a function of how much space it has at its disposal. Since Wikipedia, per the WP:NOT page, does not have a "practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability" we can cover just about anything. Encyclopedias always retain roundedness, so they cover the whole world and not just a part of it. For example, the Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana, an 119-volume work almost as large as Wikipedia, has integrated dictionaries of English, German, Spanish, Esperanto, Portuguese, and Italian words. It also has maps of small towns, making it effectively a guide book, as well. Another example would be anything from Larousse, which also contain embedded dictionaries. The Allgemeine Encyclopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste at 162 volumes only halfway completed is certainly larger than Wikipedia. I cited M-W's Third above--the second-largest English-language dictionary. Here's how Encyclopedia Britannica defines an encyclopedia:
Today most people think of an encyclopaedia as a multivolume compendium of all available knowledge, complete with maps and a detailed index, as well as numerous adjuncts such as bibliographies, illustrations, lists of abbreviations and foreign expressions, gazetteers, and so on.
Later in the intro, it says the following:
In this article the word encyclopaedia has been taken to include not only the great general encyclopaedias of the past and the present but all types of works that claim to provide in an orderly arrangement the essence of “all that is known” on a subject or a group of subjects. This includes dictionaries of philosophy and of American history as well as volumes such as The World Almanac and Book of Facts, which is really a kind of encyclopaedia of current information.
Further, here's how the most complete and respected English dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary, defines an encyclopedia (most quotes and etymology omitted, except where needed):
1. The circle of learning; a general course of instruction.
1708 Motteux Rabelais v. xx, In you are lodg’d a Cornucopia, an Encyclopedia, an unmeasurable Profundity of Knowledge.
2. A literary work containing extensive information on all branches of knowledge, usually arranged in alphabetical order.
1841 Myers Cath. Th. iii. ii. 4 The Bible is..by no means indeed an Encyclopædia.
The word in this sense appears first as the title of certain works published in the 17th cent. esp. that of Alstedius (see quot. 1819).
b. Sometimes applied spec. to the French work ‘Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des Sciences, des Arts, et des Métiers’ (1751-1765), by Diderot, D’Alembert, and other eminent scholars and men of science.
3. An elaborate and exhaustive repertory of information on all the branches of some particular art or department of knowledge; esp. one arranged in alphabetical order.
hence
en"cyclo'pædiac a.
[see -ac], = ENCYCLOPÆDIC; . . .
Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. [2]--Jimbo Wales
This is a legitimate spelling. I can be found in the OED, as well as Encyclopædia Britannica. If someone wants to make a sub-section in the article to explain in more detail about it, that's fine. Or even better, in Wiktionary. But the fact is, it's usage can be found in the real world and we report on what the real world does, not what we think the real world should do. -- Stbalbach 17:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
What is a "branch of knowledge"? The lead definition mentions this twice, but the body text has no mention of this. It seems to refer to a very particular idea of how knowledge can be classified and categorized. Unless a reference to "branches of knowledge" is made in the body text, or the "branches" of knowledge described, I would propose to remove these terms.
Pusle8 ( talk) 19:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Encyclopedia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Just a note but there's a draft for an outline of this topic at Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of encyclopedias. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 11:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)