Systematically arranged encyclopedias: Well, checking my references, a little more than 6 vols., but on the principle:
There were. 1. Encyclopedie francaise, 1935-66 was published in 21 topical volumes. , with the contents in each arranged by topic, with an alphabetic index to each volume: titles were such as v.2 Physics v.3 Astronomy 4. Life ... v.19 Philosophy & religion. in other words, 21 long articles. ( issued loose-leaf for updating, rather than in bound vols. ) 2.Encyclopedie de la Pleaide, 1955- 26 vols. Examples: v.18 Biology, v., 20 Geography 3. In Spanish Enciclopia Labor" , 1955-60, in 9 vols., including v. 7 Literature and music, v. 8, arts, sports, games 4. In Dutch, eerste nederlandse systematisch ingericht encyclopedie 1946-53 9.v. e.g. v.2 literature and the arts, v.3, History sociology & politics and in English: Oxford Junior encyclopedia. 1964 13 v. , such as v.8: Engineering, v.9 recreation , but with the articles arranged alphabetically within each vol. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Gwern Branwen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 7:31 PM, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 7 March 2010 00:00, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Onus? No, I'm seeing masses of highly experienced editors leaving the >>> project, with those replacing them being relatively clueless, as to >>> the original vision, which was itself brilliant but incomplete. >> >> You aren't allowing for the typical length of intense participation in >> *any* online environment typically being 18-24 months (MMORPGs, etc), >> and that the stated reason may not be the reason. > > This, incidentally, allows for a third option to Abd's dilemma: an > editor can just be patient. > > Here's a personal example, lightly fictionalized (because I know that > if I specify the page and edits, *someone* will take it upon > themselves to undo them just to make a point). > > 3 or 4 years ago, there was a certain controversy, which got written > up into an article. The article included a chronology with > referencing/links to the site which first noticed the discrepancy > which started the whole shebang. > > This site was considerably disapproved of, and the Powers That Be > decreed that links to it were banned, and of course, without the > referencing links, the initial entries in the chronology were now > unreferenced & OR* & to be removed. Bans were spoken of. > > I gave up on the subject, and instead added a reminder to revisit it > in a few years' time - roughly 2 of the canonical cycles. > > That timer fired a few months ago. I took the material as it was in > the last removal, and added it back in. > > Not one person has commented about or opposed the addition. > > * I'll note in passing that OR has policy-creeped considerably since > the early days; certainly the people who originally were invoking OR > against Time Cube or Archimedes Plutonium or the electric universe > would be a little surprised at current usage. > > -- > gwern > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
