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

  • scratchee@feddit.ukEnglish
    51·
    3 days ago

    Less errors, more content, more up to date, more accessible. That said, I’ll admit the smell of a rarely opened tome is missed.

    • antonim@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      120·
      2 days ago

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      Up to date, mostly yes (unless the editors get their info from outdated sources, which does happen), and accessible, definitely.

      • scratchee@feddit.ukEnglish
        21·
        2 days 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.

      • 42yeah@eviltoast.orgEnglish
        9·
        2 days ago

        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.

        • antonim@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
          2·
          2 days ago

          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.