On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:53 PM, geni <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12 August 2011 20:24, George Herbert <[email protected]> wrote: >> We still have wide gaps in knowledge coverage. Not in the most common >> areas, but in many specialized areas, where they're not heavily >> geek-populated. >> > > Yes but those don't have much to do with normal applications of encyclopedias.
Sure they do. The question is what coverage you want in the encyclopedia. You may not be a construction guy, but wouldn't it be useful if you could say "Hmm, what are those standardized 1.5 inch square open metal channels used everywhere in construction?" and find [[Strut channel]] on Wikipedia. And a few thousand other construction things I haven't had time to add, yet. And engineering. All these specialized things are encyclopedic, and matter in the world, even if they're not geek-significant. There's no reason not to define encyclopedic as inclusive of topics such as these. -- -george william herbert [email protected] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
