4 ms·

Just basic information, which is better than nothing. If you enquire about the bank in wikipedia you'll get something like "Awesome Band is a neo-dark-fusion-

Just basic information, which is better than nothing. If you enquire about the bank in wikipedia you'll get something like "Awesome Band is a neo-dark-fusion-hip-hop jazz Slovenian band formed in 2002. They have produced one album called and are currently active." Answers the question "what is Awesome Band?" which is the role of wikipedia, isn't it?

pbhjpbhj 16y ago
>Answers the question "what is Awesome Band?" which is the role of wikipedia, isn't it? No, it's not. Wikipedia is a knowledge repository not _the_ knowledge repository. It's not there to hold every little bit of trivia, if you want to find "what is Awesome Band" then use a search engine. Wikipedia is there to house notable instances and information that has wider application than mere trivia. Unless Awesome Band started a new genre, influenced well known bands, is a well known band (eg number 1 tracks, headlining particularly large events, etc.) or is known for something else then it's probably enough to mention them as a footnote as a band that played at Event X or possibly as a notable example of a genre or whatever. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Wikipedia_content_criteria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Wikipedia_conte...
- bane 16y ago
  You have a basic, fundamental misunderstanding of what wikipedia is then. Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. - Jimmy Wales http://interviews.slashdot.org/story/04/07/28/1351230/Wikipedia-Founder-Jimmy-Wales-Responds http://interviews.slashdot.org/story/04/07/28/1351230/Wikipe...
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    That's clearly not what is being done if you either assess the linked content guidelines or look at Wikipedia itself. One can either contest that this is simply a soundbite for the press or look at the definition of "knowledge" being used if one cares to square the apparent contradictions. Why would Wikipedia even attempt to record all information about everything, who wants to know what I had for breakfast or what image is on my son's pyjamas; I contend that everyone that really needs that information already has it.
    - bane 16y ago
      Why would Wikipedia even attempt to record all information about everything, who wants to know what I had for breakfast or what image is on my son's pyjamas; I contend that everyone that really needs that information already has it. Who knows? I needed information on Alice ML today, but alas that was not to be. You are not the personal arbitrator of what I need to know any more than Chris Monsanto is of what languages are notable! For at least the first half of it's life, wikipedia grew at an astonishing rate precisely because it wasn't being moderated by pedantic self-appointed editors. The rise of the editor class in wikipedia may have irreperably broken it as a compendium of knowledge. Imagine, people who know nothing about a subject telling you weather that subject is important to you! Ridiculous? That's the current state of affairs. One could argue there is even a growing movement of people, like minded with yourself, that it should simply be reduced until it contains no more information than any other run-of-the-mill encyclopedia. I have news for you, we have plenty of free, scope-limited, hand curated encyclopedias. Here's what I came up with in 30 seconds. Go entertain yourself with these if you think having articles on obscure, but important topics is simply too much for you to handle. http://www.encyclopedia.com/ http://www.encyclopedia.com/ http://www.britannica.com/ http://www.britannica.com/ http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/ http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/ http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Main_Page http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Main_Page The point of Wikipedia is to go far beyond these approaches by crowdsourcing the content. So that people can add what they personally know about obscure subjects. If I happen to be an expert in Korean clam harvesting operations, should I be able to write an article on that? Who the hell cares if you don't personally take an interest in it. You're right if your response is "well we don't want to just copy what's on the web!" An encyclopedia is supposed to provided a summary of a subject, a launching off point, a confirmation of a subject's existence. It should provide exhaustive breadth. In wikipedia's case, it was even able to provide a bit of depth through external citations, and through hyperlinking to other parts of itself. But the number of subjects should be virtually unlimited. Wikipedia should provide the long-tail. As a pedagogic device, limiting what I'm allowed to look up limits what I can learn about. To your example, it might be of fantastic importance to me to know what are popular breakfast foods in your country or what kinds of logos kids are wearing these days. A page about Breakfast practices or marketing to children then would be fantastically important to me, but maybe not to you.

pbhjpbhj 16y ago

>Answers the question "what is Awesome Band?" which is the role of wikipedia, isn't it? No, it's not. Wikipedia is a knowledge repository not _the_ knowledge repository. It's not there to hold every little bit of trivia, if you want to find "what is Awesome Band" then use a search engine. Wikipedia is there to house notable instances and information that has wider application than mere trivia. Unless Awesome Band started a new genre, influenced well known bands, is a well known band (eg number 1 tracks, headlining particularly large events, etc.) or is known for something else then it's probably enough to mention them as a footnote as a band that played at Event X or possibly as a notable example of a genre or whatever. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Wikipedia_content_criteria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Wikipedia_conte...

bane 16y ago
You have a basic, fundamental misunderstanding of what wikipedia is then. Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. - Jimmy Wales http://interviews.slashdot.org/story/04/07/28/1351230/Wikipedia-Founder-Jimmy-Wales-Responds http://interviews.slashdot.org/story/04/07/28/1351230/Wikipe...
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  That's clearly not what is being done if you either assess the linked content guidelines or look at Wikipedia itself. One can either contest that this is simply a soundbite for the press or look at the definition of "knowledge" being used if one cares to square the apparent contradictions. Why would Wikipedia even attempt to record all information about everything, who wants to know what I had for breakfast or what image is on my son's pyjamas; I contend that everyone that really needs that information already has it.
  - bane 16y ago
    Why would Wikipedia even attempt to record all information about everything, who wants to know what I had for breakfast or what image is on my son's pyjamas; I contend that everyone that really needs that information already has it. Who knows? I needed information on Alice ML today, but alas that was not to be. You are not the personal arbitrator of what I need to know any more than Chris Monsanto is of what languages are notable! For at least the first half of it's life, wikipedia grew at an astonishing rate precisely because it wasn't being moderated by pedantic self-appointed editors. The rise of the editor class in wikipedia may have irreperably broken it as a compendium of knowledge. Imagine, people who know nothing about a subject telling you weather that subject is important to you! Ridiculous? That's the current state of affairs. One could argue there is even a growing movement of people, like minded with yourself, that it should simply be reduced until it contains no more information than any other run-of-the-mill encyclopedia. I have news for you, we have plenty of free, scope-limited, hand curated encyclopedias. Here's what I came up with in 30 seconds. Go entertain yourself with these if you think having articles on obscure, but important topics is simply too much for you to handle. http://www.encyclopedia.com/ http://www.encyclopedia.com/ http://www.britannica.com/ http://www.britannica.com/ http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/ http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/ http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Main_Page http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Main_Page The point of Wikipedia is to go far beyond these approaches by crowdsourcing the content. So that people can add what they personally know about obscure subjects. If I happen to be an expert in Korean clam harvesting operations, should I be able to write an article on that? Who the hell cares if you don't personally take an interest in it. You're right if your response is "well we don't want to just copy what's on the web!" An encyclopedia is supposed to provided a summary of a subject, a launching off point, a confirmation of a subject's existence. It should provide exhaustive breadth. In wikipedia's case, it was even able to provide a bit of depth through external citations, and through hyperlinking to other parts of itself. But the number of subjects should be virtually unlimited. Wikipedia should provide the long-tail. As a pedagogic device, limiting what I'm allowed to look up limits what I can learn about. To your example, it might be of fantastic importance to me to know what are popular breakfast foods in your country or what kinds of logos kids are wearing these days. A page about Breakfast practices or marketing to children then would be fantastically important to me, but maybe not to you.