IMHO Wikipedia is a revolutionary point of view to have a concept of
"Encyclopedia". A revolutionary point of view makes antagonism
(naturally).

In his presentation in Wikipedia Day prof.Meyer has made a comparison
with the Encyclopédie of D'Alembert and Diderot but there is a
difference: the culture is not a culture which has the goal to learn
people, but in Wikipedia people learn himself. The revolution is the
direction of learning.

The revolution is that in Wikipedia it is encyclopaedic not the
article but what people know, what people discuss, what people
understand. The mistakes in the article are encyclopaedic.

My professor of phylosophy, making order in own library, told me:
"Someone could throw these old scientific books because the physic is
changed for example, because they are not value for scientific people,
but there are interesting for other people to understand how was the
scientific thought some centuries ago".

Ilario

On 9/25/06, thurner rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hi,
>
> the whole story cooled down, meyer removed the "i no longer
> contribute" from his personal page, his contribution is still there -
> just the style discussion is still open, but it also seems to go in mr
> meyers favour.
>
> on 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eiffel_%28programming_language%29#Quick_poll_on_typographic_conventions
> there is a vote on the eiffel coding style in wikipedia. for code
> blocks it now goes in favour of the standard, or in other words how
> bertrand meyers sees the story, for inline code (the code mentioned in
> the normal text) it is not decided yet.
>
> maybe you would like to participate too?
>
> rupert.
> -------------------
> treasurer - http://wikimedia.ch
>
> On 9/18/06, Manuel Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Bertrand Meyer, Folge 3
> >
> > „Wikipedia schrieb Bertrand Meyer tot" – mit einer falschen Todesmeldung
> > geriet die deutsche Wikipedia letzten Winter in die Schlagzeilen. Solche
> > Malheurs hinderten den Schweizer Informatikprofessor jedoch nicht daran,
> > kurze Zeit später unter dem Titel „Defense and Illustration of Wikipedia"
> > eine eloquente Verteidigung der Wikipedia zu verfassen. Was eine gefälschte
> > Todesnachricht nicht geschafft hatte, erreichte jedoch der Streit um den
> > Artikel zu der von Meyer geschaffenen Programmiersprache Eiffel.
> > I no longer contribute to Wikipedia. I tried to make a substantial
> > contribution, and was heckled down by incompetent zealots ("incompetent" is
> > not my characterization: they were proud to trumpet their lack of knowledge
> > of the subject matter, as it gave them more right to intervene in the
> > article). Parnas et al. were right: the project is a disaster. Please do not
> > believe anything you see on Wikipedia articles. If you are tempted to, 
> > please
> > try the following experiment for a few weeks: write on an important subject
> > that you know and care about; write your best, making sure to apply the
> > strictest standards of scholarship and objectivity. Don't spend too much 
> > time
> > on it, but just do it right. Then wait a little. You'll understand. [2]
> >
> > Wikipedia hat einen Experten und Fan weniger. (elian, 9.9.06)
> >
> >
> > http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Kurier
> > --
> > Regards
> > Manuel Schneider
> >
> > Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
> > Wikimedia CH - Association for the advancement of free knowledge
> > www.wikimedia.ch
> > _______________________________________________
> > www.wikimedia.ch Wikimedia CH website
> > Wikimediach-l mailing list
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> www.wikimedia.ch Wikimedia CH website
> Wikimediach-l mailing list
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l
>
_______________________________________________
www.wikimedia.ch Wikimedia CH website
Wikimediach-l mailing list
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l

Reply via email to