On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 3:59 AM, Peter Damian <[email protected]>wrote:
> To Notbod's long note. > > To say Wikipedia's coverage is 'frighteningly large' is not the same as > saying its coverage is 'even'. > > On the list here > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Core_topics_-_1,000 > I have looked at Philosophy and nearly all the 11 articles there are > horrifyingly bad. What sort of encyclopedia has no decent entry on > Philosophy? Even the article [[Philosophy]] is a disaster. I have already > noted the problem about [[Existence]]. On Religion, there is still no > decent article on Theology. Science mathematics and technology are > probably > OK, as I have already noted (the problem is with the humanities). > [[Logic]] > is a disaster and I have long been planning (with Charles Stewart) a > rewrite. > > "There will always be more television programmes, long playing records, > popular beat combos and innovative sex toys than there will be Einsteins, > paradigm shifting scientific discoveries and philosophical enquiries." - of > course but don't confuse that point with the question of which of these > subjects should be included in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia should > have > a bias towards what is enduring. What subjects will interest readers of > the > encyclopedia in 100 years time? I am not saying to ignore the trivial and > ephemeral, but rather to give to emphasise what is truly enduring and > notable from the POV of posterity. > > But thanks at least for addressing the subject of this thread and not > subjecting me to a tirade of abuse :) > > Regards, > > Peter > > > What would you suggest the Wikimedia Foundation do to address the coverage problem in the humanities? Employ academic experts to add content? Delete ephemera to improve the balance of topics? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
