|
I, too, was wondering which version this was. Personally, I think it's cool. Wouldn't it be wild if we could read the entire bible, koran, whatever in an encyclopedia? Finally the brevity with which encylopedias address subject matter would no longer be dictated by space considerations. I once postulated a educational model for a search engine of reference sources, which would be cross-referenced in "trees" both alphabetically and by subject. You could look up "sloth" under "S" or arrive at it by going to Science/Biology?/Taxonomy?/Animalia?/Mammalia? and whatever. Same with Harper's Ferry. Look it up under the alphabet to go to History/American?/Civil? War/John? Brown or Civil War/Battles?, etc. WikiPedia has a potential to do something very much like this. As we are not limited by physical space, we don't have to say "you can't put that here. It's too big." |
|
I, too, was wondering which version this was. Personally, I think it's cool. Wouldn't it be wild if we could read the entire bible, koran, whatever in an encyclopedia? Finally the brevity with which encylopedias address subject matter would no longer be dictated by space considerations. I once postulated a educational model for a search engine of reference sources, which would be cross-referenced in "trees" both alphabetically and by subject. You could look up "sloth" under "S" or arrive at it by going to Science/Biology?/Taxonomy?/Animalia?/Mammalia? and whatever. Same with Harper's Ferry. Look it up under the alphabet to go to History/American?/Civil? War/John? Brown or Civil War/Battles?, etc. WikiPedia has a potential to do something very much like this. As we are not limited by physical space, we don't have to say "you can't put that here. It's too big." I tend to agree, but I do wonder where we might want to draw the line (if at all). I posted in the UnitedStatesConstitution and the JapanConstitution, just on the theory that it is free and that it is useful background information. Similarly for the Bible, I suppose. Especially if we wikify it. So when you see a character like AdaM? or JesusChrist?, you can just click to read who that person is. You could weave in and out of the text and public commentary on the text. But what about the full text of MobyDick? Does that belong here? I'm less convinced. It might be more useful to simply point to an un-wiki copy, because permitting people to wikify that text is probably fairly pointless. Still... this is such an exciting experiment, I'd like to see us play with everything! :-) |
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)