Does all this really belongs in an encyclopedia? Sure it deserves
lots of space in the
tabloids, and some marginal space in
the rest of the media, but here, I'm not sure.....
Just in case, I didn't write the entry on induhvidual, i didn't even know what it was before. I just moved it from the
top to a subpage of Dilbert, where it arguably belongs.
I'll try to dig the archives of Princeton to see if Einstein had
a car and got some ticket, it could be relevant in his biography..
well, if this is the current events show that Dilbertiana implies, sure. But then I'm a medievalist and this all seems far, far too presentist for anyone to care about in 6 months, let alone over the lifespan of an encyclopedia. Soon, after all, we'll be having to separate their pages, list their spouses, their divorces, their second spouses, etcetera, if we're going to pretend that Wikipedia is anything like an up-to-date resource. By the way, I've already spotted one dead mathematician in the live mathematician list, but I'm leaving it up to those who dwell in the present to find him. --
MichaelTinkler
Ah, come on, if the 1911 Encyclopedia can spend its energy on the popes and their scandals, can't we be scandalized by the actions of our modern day notables?
btw: the popes were
much more scandalous.
Considering that this is a pretty infinite encyclopedia, sure. It's at least as interesting and important as "induhvidual". We shouldn't try to discourage people from adding entries in which they're interested. We should try to make the entries as informative and useful as possible. Remember,
Wiki is not paper. There can be up-to-date, instant-interest entries in the Wikipedia, because new editions aren't released every decade, but every second. I don't think worrying about future updates should discourage us from such timely entries. At least, that's my two cents. There's a lot more useful things to do than trying to exclude entries. All IMHO. --
The Cunctator
humble? hmmmm. and timely? oh, well. go ahead. I'm not doing anything in particular on a Friday night, either. I wish I were out drinking in Austin myself. Oh, and I agree that we shouldn't discourage people from adding what they like. All in all.
It's not so much the 'current-ness' of the article that bothers me, but the gossipy nature of it. I'm not going to remove it, but I do want my objection noted in the log. ;-) --
STG
Don't these poor women get pages for themselves? What if Barbara runs for president and Jenna leads a Maoist insurrection? Will they still be "Barbara and Jenna Bush"? :)
Yes, they should have their own pages...and the bulk of the article shouldn't consist of their run-ins with the police, of course. --
LMS
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)