8 ms·
> We talked idealistically about how Wikipedia could become an encyclopedia of specialist encyclopedias, the superset of encyclopedias. "would you expect to see
by s_kilk 10y ago
> We talked idealistically about how Wikipedia could become an encyclopedia of specialist encyclopedias, the superset of encyclopedias. "would you expect to see a Bulbasaur article in a Pokemon encyclopedia? yes? then let’s have a Bulbasaur article". The potential was that Wikipedia would be the summary of the Internet and books/media. Instead of punching in a keyword to a search engine and getting 100 pages dealing with tiny fragments of the topic (in however much detail), you would get a coherent overview summarizing everything worth knowing about the topic, for almost all topics.
That sounds much cooler than what we've actually ended up with.
- psyc 10y agoThat is what Wikipedia actually was in the early 2000s.
- tptacek 10y agoThe single most ambitious and effective single resource in perhaps the history of recorded human knowledge? It's not cool enough for you because there isn't a totally separate independent article about whatever the fuck a Bulbasaurus is?
- gluggymug 10y agoYou don't know what a Bulbasaur is? Maybe look it up on Wikipedia because as has been mentioned here already there IS an article on Bulbasaur! It is not a stub either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulbasaur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulbasaur Wikipedia has righted the wrong eventually.
- tptacek 10y agoYeah it turns out that Bulbasaurus is a very bad example. Sorry. I literally know Pokemon principally as a thing people use to complain about Wikipedia with. I Googled "obscure Pokemon" and will henceforth be using "Kingler" as my example of how unreasonably demanding the Internet is of Wikipedia.
- Others 10y ago"Bulbasaur" != "Bulbasaurus"