4 ms·

> An encyclopedia is a survey of existing secondary sources. It's not a research venue. Then I suppose I'm also frustrated at Wikipedia's lack of ambition. To

> An encyclopedia is a survey of existing secondary sources. It's not a research venue. Then I suppose I'm also frustrated at Wikipedia's lack of ambition. To strive toward that benchmark and not past it seems, as I said, wasteful. One of the things that fuels this feeling for me is the work of people like Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson. I think there is a role for experts to address the public directly, rather than their peers. To be sure, it can get very messy, as some of the most vocal cranks think they are experts and seek every possible venue to espouse their nonsense, but they do that anyway. I'd love to see the bar lowered for scientists to contribute to works that are easy to access via the web and written for a lay audience, without having to start and maintain their own blog.

tptacek 15y ago
Experts should address the public directly. It has never been easier for them to do that. But they shouldn't address the public by writing encyclopedia articles. They should write books, write journal articles, give recorded talks, have IamA discussions on Reddit, debate things on message boards. Encyclopedia articles are the worst way for them to address the public. Wikipedia is one of the most ambitious projects on the whole Internet. It is the world's most ambitious and most expansive encyclopedia. It was created entirely out of donated time using the Internet. It is hard to take seriously any argument that says Wikipedia is unambitious. There's a whole rest of the Internet for you to build other ambitious knowledge projects on; the rest of the Internet also doesn't demand that you redefine the concept of an encyclopedia to do it.
- dalke 15y ago
  "An encyclopedia is a survey of existing secondary sources" This is incorrect. The definition of encyclopedia has nothing to do with 1) primary vs. secondary sources, nor 2) a survey of said sources. Consider "The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences", which contains links to primary sources. Consider the "Encyclopedia of Physics", which is certainly not a review of existing secondary sources. The "Encyclopedia of Science Fiction" (from the 1970s) contains new research and essays about the people and themes in science fiction. "Encyclopedia articles are the worst way for them to address the public." When one of the first things that the public does is to consult Wikipedia, then a Wikipedia page is one of the best ways to reach people. If the information on the page conflicts with the primary sources, then the weight of the secondary sources should be diminished in favor of the secondary sources which are in agreement with the primary sources. Your statement here is also wrong even on the surface. Stephen Barr (to pick one of many specific examples) is a researcher on grand unified theories, and he contributed the article on grand unified theories to the Encyclopedia of Physics. You saw elsewhere in this thread that Mandelbrot contributed the "fractal" article to Encarta. The Wikipedia page for "Encyclopædia Britannica" even says "Britannica's authors have included authorities such as Albert Einstein, Marie Curie, and Leon Trotsky". Why would he or the other expert contributors have done that if doing so is the "worst" way to reach the public? The obvious conclusion is that your views of how encyclopedias work is wrong, in that it does not agree with numerous real-world examples. Hence it is you who have redefined "the concept of an encyclopedia."
  - tptacek 15y ago
    What are some examples of original research published in the Encyclopedia of Physics? What's an example of something documented in the Encyclopedia of Physics that isn't traceable to some earlier publication in something like Physical Review Letters? I think you've missed my point with regards to experts writing in encyclopedias. I didn't say they can't; I said they probably shouldn't, as it's a waste of their time. Of course, if Britannica is paying you to, different story.
    - dalke 15y ago
      There are three issues here: primary sources, secondary sources, and original research. You said "An encyclopedia is a survey of existing secondary sources". It is not. An encyclopedia also contains references to primary sources, and can also contain new research. A reference to a primary source would be, for example, a reference to Newton's "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica" or to Darwin's "On the Origin of Species". An article on the history of evolutionary thought would be remiss if it does not include Darwin's book and instead only referred to books discussing Darwin's work. Like the children's game "telephone", only relying on secondary (and then tertiary, then quaternary) sources can amplify noise. You then asked about "examples of original research published in the Encyclopedia of Physics". There are two different types of research involved here. One is "original to the field of physics". Physics has a well-established mechanism for publishing and disseminating work, and that is not an encyclopedia. The other is the research needed to reconcile and synthesize multiple viewpoints into a well-constructed whole. A non-fiction piece for the New Yorker likely entails new research (even an interview is new research), and that's the type of research which goes well with an encyclopedia. Take a look at Wikipedia's entry for "History of the Encyclopædia Britannica" with comments like "40,000-word hagiographic biography of George Washington" and "Dr. Thomas Thomson, who introduced the first usage of chemical symbols in the 1801 supplement". Thomas Young translated the Rosetta Stone and in his WP page is written "[s]ome of Young's conclusions appeared in the famous article "Egypt" he wrote for the 1818 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica." Or take Asimov's Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology. The entire encyclopedia was written by Asimov, who commented "I alone have done every bit of the necessary research and writing; and without any assistance whatever, not even that of a typist." Right there in the text it says "research." Do you think these examples of the research which goes into encyclopedia articles aren't actual research? If not, why not? Or are these simply not encyclopedias? As to "if Britannica is paying"... do you think Harry Houdini, Albert Einstein, Marie Curie, Sigmund Freud, Henry Ford, Leon Trotsky, Arthur Eddington, Lord Kelvin, Humphry Davy, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Malthus, and yes, even Isaac Newton, were contributors to EB mostly because they were being paid for their work? Most certainly not! (How much would Ford's time cost?) From what I've read, other factors were because they wanted to contribute to a collection of knowledge, and because of the prestige.

tptacek 15y ago

Experts should address the public directly. It has never been easier for them to do that. But they shouldn't address the public by writing encyclopedia articles. They should write books, write journal articles, give recorded talks, have IamA discussions on Reddit, debate things on message boards. Encyclopedia articles are the worst way for them to address the public. Wikipedia is one of the most ambitious projects on the whole Internet. It is the world's most ambitious and most expansive encyclopedia. It was created entirely out of donated time using the Internet. It is hard to take seriously any argument that says Wikipedia is unambitious. There's a whole rest of the Internet for you to build other ambitious knowledge projects on; the rest of the Internet also doesn't demand that you redefine the concept of an encyclopedia to do it.

dalke 15y ago
"An encyclopedia is a survey of existing secondary sources" This is incorrect. The definition of encyclopedia has nothing to do with 1) primary vs. secondary sources, nor 2) a survey of said sources. Consider "The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences", which contains links to primary sources. Consider the "Encyclopedia of Physics", which is certainly not a review of existing secondary sources. The "Encyclopedia of Science Fiction" (from the 1970s) contains new research and essays about the people and themes in science fiction. "Encyclopedia articles are the worst way for them to address the public." When one of the first things that the public does is to consult Wikipedia, then a Wikipedia page is one of the best ways to reach people. If the information on the page conflicts with the primary sources, then the weight of the secondary sources should be diminished in favor of the secondary sources which are in agreement with the primary sources. Your statement here is also wrong even on the surface. Stephen Barr (to pick one of many specific examples) is a researcher on grand unified theories, and he contributed the article on grand unified theories to the Encyclopedia of Physics. You saw elsewhere in this thread that Mandelbrot contributed the "fractal" article to Encarta. The Wikipedia page for "Encyclopædia Britannica" even says "Britannica's authors have included authorities such as Albert Einstein, Marie Curie, and Leon Trotsky". Why would he or the other expert contributors have done that if doing so is the "worst" way to reach the public? The obvious conclusion is that your views of how encyclopedias work is wrong, in that it does not agree with numerous real-world examples. Hence it is you who have redefined "the concept of an encyclopedia."
- tptacek 15y ago
  What are some examples of original research published in the Encyclopedia of Physics? What's an example of something documented in the Encyclopedia of Physics that isn't traceable to some earlier publication in something like Physical Review Letters? I think you've missed my point with regards to experts writing in encyclopedias. I didn't say they can't; I said they probably shouldn't, as it's a waste of their time. Of course, if Britannica is paying you to, different story.
  - dalke 15y ago
    There are three issues here: primary sources, secondary sources, and original research. You said "An encyclopedia is a survey of existing secondary sources". It is not. An encyclopedia also contains references to primary sources, and can also contain new research. A reference to a primary source would be, for example, a reference to Newton's "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica" or to Darwin's "On the Origin of Species". An article on the history of evolutionary thought would be remiss if it does not include Darwin's book and instead only referred to books discussing Darwin's work. Like the children's game "telephone", only relying on secondary (and then tertiary, then quaternary) sources can amplify noise. You then asked about "examples of original research published in the Encyclopedia of Physics". There are two different types of research involved here. One is "original to the field of physics". Physics has a well-established mechanism for publishing and disseminating work, and that is not an encyclopedia. The other is the research needed to reconcile and synthesize multiple viewpoints into a well-constructed whole. A non-fiction piece for the New Yorker likely entails new research (even an interview is new research), and that's the type of research which goes well with an encyclopedia. Take a look at Wikipedia's entry for "History of the Encyclopædia Britannica" with comments like "40,000-word hagiographic biography of George Washington" and "Dr. Thomas Thomson, who introduced the first usage of chemical symbols in the 1801 supplement". Thomas Young translated the Rosetta Stone and in his WP page is written "[s]ome of Young's conclusions appeared in the famous article "Egypt" he wrote for the 1818 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica." Or take Asimov's Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology. The entire encyclopedia was written by Asimov, who commented "I alone have done every bit of the necessary research and writing; and without any assistance whatever, not even that of a typist." Right there in the text it says "research." Do you think these examples of the research which goes into encyclopedia articles aren't actual research? If not, why not? Or are these simply not encyclopedias? As to "if Britannica is paying"... do you think Harry Houdini, Albert Einstein, Marie Curie, Sigmund Freud, Henry Ford, Leon Trotsky, Arthur Eddington, Lord Kelvin, Humphry Davy, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Malthus, and yes, even Isaac Newton, were contributors to EB mostly because they were being paid for their work? Most certainly not! (How much would Ford's time cost?) From what I've read, other factors were because they wanted to contribute to a collection of knowledge, and because of the prestige.