|
The title of this page is entirely wrong. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If it were to become yet another discussion forum, I would just shut it down. The vision of yet another discussion forum doesn't motivate me in the least. I want to start off a discussion here about how Wiki differs from older media, and what that implies about how we should use or modify traditions from those other media. Please add your own thoughts to this page. * Size limits: The most obvious difference is that there are, in principle, no size limits here. It is quite possible, for example, that when I finish typing in everything I want to say about Poker, there might well be over 100 pages, and enough text for a full-length book by itself. This would certainly never be tolerated in a paper encyclopedia, which is why Britannica has such limited information on the topic (and on most other topics). But I see no reason at all why Wiki shouldn't grow into something beyond what would could ever possibly be put on paper. The Nupedia FAQ rightly warns about taxing a reader's patience with rambling prose, and I agree, but I'm talking about things like detailed subtopics and sub-subtopics. Why shouldn't there be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly crosslinked and introduced by a shorter central page like the above? Why shouldn't every episode name in the list link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia? Why shouldn't each of the 100+ poker games I describe have its own page with rules, strategy, and opinions? Hard disks are cheap. I agree with this one completely. --Jimbo Wales * Style differences: Some standards of English prose style don't really apply. For example, CMS (The Chicago Manual of Style) tells us to briefly gloss the first use of an abbreviation, as I just did with "CMS". Also, jargon terms can be treated similarly. This makes a lot of sense--if you mention something, the reader may want to know more about that thing, and giving a full name will make it easier for him to look it up. But we have something even better--a direct link to the thing, not just a full name. This is even better for glossing jargon, because many terms are simply not explained at all by a quick gloss, but a link would do wonders. I think thik this: ...code page 437 was based on the DEC VT-220 terminal?... is easier to read and far superior to: ...code page 437 was based on the DEC (Digital Equipment Corporation) VT-220 terminal (a computer input/output device). I agree with this one, too. I will say that we ought to have style standards, of course, but that these will evolve to suit our needs and abilities here in the wiki. And of course, the open nature of the software means that enforcement only comes to the extent that we authors care to enforce it. --Jimbo Wales * Ease of editing: There should be less need of weasel words like "at the time of this writing", "generally recognized as", "commonly believed that", etc. Just say it the way you think it is, and if you're proven wrong, come back and edit it later. If there are disagreements, then put up a page about each disagreement (see below). I only partially agree with this one. The reason is that when I write on some controversial current topics like Napster, I know that it might be awhile until I come back and edit it. Others could edit it, of course, but I can't be sure when they will. So it is best to write in a timeless fashion, because it is likely that many pages will grow gracefully old. --Jimbo Wales * Opinions: Encyclopedias (rightly, I think) try to avoid controversial opinions. I think a headlining article on a topic should be as factual as possible, but I also think it should link to opinions: Maybe we could have a standard "/Opinions?" subpage (which differs from "/Talk?" in being a list of pointers to finished essays rather than an active discussion). Each page describing a poker game, for example, could have a /Talk? subpage where people describe their experiences with the game, and an /Opinions? subpage pointing to longer essays where various people express detailed opinions about the game or how they would improve it. I have a very strong disagreement with this one. Wikipedia IS an encyclopedia. The wikipedia should write neutrally about opinions, but the wikipedia should not put forward opinions. There is no need to shy away from controversial opinions -- but there is every reason to shy away from asserting those opinions. --Jimbo Wales Please add to this list and comment. |
|
|
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)