Talk:Encyclopedia/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Reasonable remarks

The anonymous is correct, AFAICT. It is true that Croatia was not an independent country at the time, but it is also true it was a country, and it is true that the Croats did exist at the time (perhaps not as a modern nation that they are today, but certainly in some form). This kind of confusion in old encylopedias when it comes to assigning origin to people has been known to happen - for a time, the adjective "Hungarian" was bluntly applied to all citizens of the Kingdom of Hungary regardless of whether they were Magyars, Croats, Slovaks, Romanians or other. In this case, thankfully, the etymology of the surname is fairly clear. --Joy [shallot] 21:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC) (Also same case with the countries ruled by the Germans, or with people of smaller nationalities/ ethnic groups!)


That's what Joy thinks about this matter. As far as I'm concerned, this argument that four modern encyclopedias have same information doesn't give any credibility to it (false informations should be corrected no matter where and how many times published)! Formerly in many encyclopedias there was a lot of informations in relation to the ex Soviet block and about many countries which were a part of it, with a numerous false informations, all in that and similar prestige encyclopedias. Same case was with Yugoslavia and many republics (today independent countries) which were parts of it. How much accurate can be, for instance Encarta, shows perfectly one exampe; it is said there ( don't know which edition exactly) that Josip Broz Tito was born in a Zagreb which is unbelivable nonsense since he was born in Kumrovec- village near Zagreb, in Zagorje region. In that village you'll find a memorial museum dedicated to him in his family house where he was born. Another example of false informations; in one of that encyclopedias you'll still maybe find one absourd geographical information- that Croatia has only as 129 square miles (!) of a sea ( true fact: more than 11600 square miles, around 3100 miles of seaside and over 1000 islands). :In fact Croatia is a country of a numerous beautifool beaches with very high income out of tourism annually.There are many other examples of a inaccurate informations regarding Croatia, but also about many other countries, esp. smaller ones.


For JOY to handle and answer

Sve što navodiš već sam jučer učinio. Argumentirao sam s njima preko 3 SATA, pružao im razumne argumente, lingvističke dokaze, činjenice, web stranice kao izvore, ali oni su se i dalje držali slijepo svojih "svetih" enciklopedija, umjesto da su pokušali barem malo razmisliti logikom zdravog razuma. Dakle, dok smo došli do toga da se ja zestim protekli su sati i sati uzaludnog debatiranja- objašnjavanja nekoga tko je upučeniji, ali nije bilo dobre volje da se malo razmisli i revidira očito krive informacije. Što mi ostaje drugo, nego pretpostaviti da je opet riječ o tipičnoj zapadnjačkoj aroganciji i egocentrizmu. Nadalje, ukoliko želiš, možeš im ti ponovno pokušati objasniti neke stvari, ali se ne nadaj puno u to da ćeš pronaći nekoga tko tamo zdravorazumski rezonira!

Ali, mislim da u svakom slučaju treba ukloniti podnaslov "Nationality" jer je čitava ta kontroverza utemeljena na gluposti i netoćnim podacima nekih Anglo-saksonskih i zapadnjačkih enciklopedija. Umjesto toga bi bolje bilo da se navede da u istim enciklopedijama (navesti ih) postoje netočni i zastarjeli podatci o nacionalnosti Paula Pavla Skalića i argumentirati zbog čega su netočni!


Pavao Skalić

I'll bring back the old version with Skalic (Skalić), because it is the most reasonable thing to do. And if someone has to say something, he can do it after he read all arguments for this version...if he want to comment.

Rens


Concerning citation,you can find this fact about Skalić in any edition of any Croatian encyclopedia (including Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Skali%C4%87). Why question? It's simple- to make this article much more fluent and interesting for any reader.

Here's another source for those that aren't sure yet, this one from Croatian MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY and Science site which shows you directly that Skalić was Croat. On this page you can also find one scientific project concerning Skalić.

Page: http://www.mzos.hr/svibor/6/01/334/proj_e.htm

For anyone who has problems about who was Skalić; he was born in todays Croatia and was ethnical Croat. His surname Skalić (Skalic) is of old croatian origin. Any other version of this surname is due to his work for many years internationally.

There are similar misunderstandings with some other Croatian scientists, authors etc., like, for instance, with Ruđer Bošković (R. Boskovic), famous scientist which is very often considered as a Italian, English ... ( because of one of redactions of his original name Ruđer as a Rogero- which was only italian redaction of Ruđer).

Also for those who believe in a absolute accuracy of Britannica- this encyclopedia is full of mistakes and ignorance, especially about smaller european nations and countries (about history, basic facts, names, misunderstanding of terms, culture, ...).

So, it is very necesarry to check any information you believe is truth in many comparations before publish anything- it's the only way things should be done.

Regards

Rens

via Pula, Croatia

I don't know Rens, I just read in Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia the following:

Had it not been for the German writer Paul Scalich, the term encyclopedia might never have been firmly established. Scalich's Encyclopaedia, seu Orbis disciplinarum (Encyclopedia, or Knowledge of the World of Disciplines, 1559) brought the term back into prominence.

I also read this in Encyclopedia Americana:

The first work known to contain the word in the title was Encyclopaedia, seu orbis disciplinarum, tum sacrarum quam prophanum epitome (1559), which was compiled by Paul Scalich (also known as Paul Skalich or Paul Scaliger).

Now that's Britannica (see below), GME, and Americana. Finally, see this book: [1]. I'm afraid we may need to see a source for this. In the meantime, I have changed the statement from "Croatian" to "German".--Primetime 23:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • OK. Rens and I have been discussing this issue on my talk page, and it appears as if his heritage is uncertain. The three sources given above and below say he's German, while the Croatian Ministry of Science and technology says he's Croatian.[2] Older sources, like the Spanish Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeoamericana, vol. 19, (1930) page 1166, and say he's Hungarian. The Encyclopaedia Britannica 11th edition (1911) page 169 says he's "an Hungarian count".[3] (You'll have to download AlternaTIFF here first to view the page, though.) So, I will change the footnote to note that his heritage is uncertain. If anyone objects, please let me know.--Primetime 19:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


If applicable, make it a different note from the very first one which deals primarily with (usage of) the ligature, æ. E Pluribus Anthony | [[User talk:E Pluribus An

thony|talk]] | 19:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed and done.--Primetime 19:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Looks good. Given the content, though, I'm wondering if at least some of this worthwhile information should be restructured and added to the article proper, perhaps as part of an Etymology or History section or the like upfront? It seems that there's no dispute per se regarding the importance of Skalić (sp.), only of his nationality. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do object! He's heritage is absolutely certain:

1. He was born in Croatia- there are original municipal documents to confirm that,

2. His surname Skalić, Shalich or any other redaction is Croatian slavic construction- any linguist, slavist or croatist would confirm that,

3. That surname is of old croatian heritage, and there's many people with that surname even today in Croatia ( on a contrary there was/is no Germans or Hungarians with such a surname and that surname construction isn't present in any of that languages!),

4. With his name, he had an adwerb "de Lika"- Lika is Croatian region (you will not find that name nowhere in Germany and Hungary!),

5. In all croatian encyclopedias you'll find he's Croat, noone of scientists - slavists, croatists and linguists don't think he is German or Hungarian,

You can insist on a same false ( also very absurd!) informations of Skalić, which is shame for such a encyclopedias, and go on with a spread of forgery of history- intentional or not, but always destructive from the prospective of truth!


Regards, Rens

The facts provided aren't in dispute per se, but your placement of them in the article is: there is much more to the topic of encyclopedias than the origin of Mr. Skalić or the rendition of his name. All of this, I believe, is rendered equitably and impartially in the current edition with footnote, and there's little reason for contentions about his origin to be so prominent in this article – that's more appropriate for the article about Paul Skalić.
As well, please be more judicious in your editing: there's NO reason to create/re-create three sections in a talk page (e.g.,) when one will suffice. Thank you for your co-operation. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


I'm not obsessed with a "heritage controversy"- I didn't started that, but it is not inconvenience in any way just to point that he was Croat, after all why should someone mind that when it's the true fact!? Only, if someone is anxious about that simple "Croat"...

Also, there are no contentions about his origin- it's you and Primetime that created a artificial controversy about his origin inspite of excellent arguments I have presented about him and his origin in start, but it seems that anyone has it's nasty habit to believe blindly in a false informations from some encyclopedias, and to ignore it's own common sense!

Regards, Rens

No problem; thanks. Also, I'll add said content to the article about Paul Skalić. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I've changed "Croat" to "Croatian scientist"--other important figures whose nationalities are identified in the article are identified in this manner, with the nationality as a modifier of some other noun, indicating the person's role, occupation, or title. I've no problem with mentioning his nationality; and have no reason to suspect he wasn't originally Croatian (other sources indicating that he's German may not be contradictory--after all, Skalic appears to be a well-travelled fellow, who may have acquired other nationalities at various times). The article as it stands looks fine to me.--EngineerScotty 00:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I just reverted it. Where did you read that? Until I see something other than that Croatian government site, I'm going to take the word of those five other encyclopedias that say he isn't Croatian. The fact that many of these sources contradict each other proves that the origin is uncertain. Thus we should take a neutral stand on the matter. The evidence is stronger against him being Croatian, but I'm willing to compromise and take the neutral wording.--Primetime 00:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Conducive to all of this, I've moved details regarding Mr. S. to his dedicated biographical article. Though I can be compelled otherwise, including detailed heritage information regarding this one individual is misplaced given that this is an overview article about encyclopedias.

As well, considering the contentious/conflicting information regarding his heritage, I think the current notation/qualifier (or, properly, lack of same) is sufficient. And noting him as a "scientist" seems both conflated and unsourced. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 09:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent Edit by Anon

the edit by Anon added "But who was the first one to use this term in this meaning in a history? Unfortunately, it is rarely known fact that this word was firstly used by Paul Skalic (cro. Pavao Skalić ), croatian encyclopedist, humanist and adventurer from Zagreb in his book Encyclopaedia seu orbis disciplinarum tam sacrarum quam prophanarum epistemon (Encyclopaedia, or Knowledge of the World of Disciplines . . .) (Basel, 1559) . Later this word came into daily use thanks to the works of french encyclopedists." I don't think encyclopedia's should ask questions. Plus needs a source. Anyone have a problem with it If I revert this? Agonizing Fury 19:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This is from the Encyclopaedia Britannica article "encyclopedia",

It was Paul Scalich, a German writer and compiler, who was the first to use the word to describe a book in the title of his Encyclopaedia; seu, orbis disciplinarum, tam sacrarum quam prophanum epistemon . . . (“Encyclopaedia; or Knowledge of the World of Disciplines, Not Only Sacred but Profane . . . ”), issued at Basel in 1559.[4]

Thus, it appears to be correct. I'm not sure about the question thing, though.--Primetime 20:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Content Experts

2000 Hours 1 April 2006 Historically, encyclopedias and their predecessors, dictionaries, have been researched and written by well-educated, well-informed content experts. This practice is responsible for the overall reliability of modern encyclopedias. An encyclopedia written by a large number of people who are not exceptionally conversant in the particulars of each given subject will, by its very nature be less reliable than one written by content experts.

Regards, Philippsbourg

Other recent discussion

It is worth mentioning who invented the current meaning of the term especially when it comes from a small or less known culture such as Croatian, having more than 13 century old its own history in Europe. 83.131.3.15 04:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC) [moved from article itself flux.books]

List of encyclopedias

The list in this article should be moved to / merged with the separate List of encyclopedias. – Kpalion (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I definately agree.--Carabinieri 15:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Disagree (except perhaps with respect to the last section of the list), the historical elements of this list would be very out of place there and not much use. And the structure illustrating the development and diffusion of the encyclopedia would be lost. The list of encyclopedias is / should be primarily current, to illustrate various subject, national, etc. encyclopedias and to serve as a current reference page. The list in encyclopedia is largely historical encyclopedias. I will look for ways to reformat the list in encyclopedia - take the headings out to shorten the excessively long TOC, for starters. And perhaps move fictional. flux.books 10:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I've revised this page and the lists page to reflect those ideas. Given that, I'd suggest removing the merge notice here in the next couple of weeks (and leave it there until some later point) subject to further discussion in the meantime. flux.books 13:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd also suggest that the question of whether "history of encyclopedias" should be a separate page is a far more fruitful topic for discussion. flux.books 16:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Difference between Encyclopedia and Dictionary

I think this is a subject that's not very well clarified. The main question to ask would be: why there is wikipedia and wikitionary? Why make two different "libraries" that has the same purpose of giving information about words?

Isn't the definition of "words have their own definitions" getting obsolete with fast information era? I mean, of course they have some kind of definition, but it's not static anymore. You'll always find different definitions for words, why keep trying to define them differently if you can just inform, give history and data. Old definitions have years to sustain them. Trying to create new definitions is just about gathering old definitions and associating it with things around you.

Both "word library" could get together, get a new name and stop trying to make two different things that have the exact same purpose of explaining a word. It looks to me this would work much better, in theory, if there were just the disambiguation for every word that is ambiguous followed by each word's meaning data accumulated. Maybe there will also be words with plain simple definitions. Why bother creating a "dictionary" for them, if you can just put the definition and add any other information that might be relevant in the same screen (not even page)? Why bother adding more information as in a encyclopedia if a simple definition (as in "brand new words" or maybe some abbreviations) is all that's needed? Why separating that if a word without definition is just as weird to think of as a word without history?

While that's my thoughts right now, I think just an explanation on the difference and links from wikipedia to wikitionary even for words that are in both places would be a good beginning. Because words that don't exist in one are already linking to the other one automatically.

A good explanation for the difference between the terms could prevent a lot of missunderstanding and be also a good guide for both Wikipedia and Wikitionary on how we should be taking care of them.

As a side note, the confusion on that can bring to a complex chain of reactions as you can see on my talk with Quuxplusone.

--Cawas 16:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Revised the definition to contrast with dictionary, this should help resolve the issue you raised. There are lots of good reasons why they are two different things, the most important being there are times when one or the other is the most useful tool for a particular need. That is, it works - it's a distinction that is useful, not theoretical. Conceivably the two could be mergeable electronically (a user could decide whether to have both, or just one or the other, show up on a page) and that would eliminate the issue. For now, this works as is. flux.books 14:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Early history

Removed the libraries comment in early history, irrelevant or even misleading to the theme. flux.books 14:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Systematica

The passage beginning with 'Newest encyclopedia-making strategies' entered to the 29.5.05-version in section 'Encyclopedia making' was deleted within 2 hours phrased "orginal research". It could be reasonable to give it access to the public-reader and other administrators for critical revision.This would prevent administrators to come into the image of being censors.See also the acceptance of Encyclopedia Systematica-passages on the Internet and [5].

Other

I think this entry deserves to be developed much further, as it pretty much sets the compass for the entire project. --Seb

Making progress, substantial revisions in the past week. flux.books 14:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Does anybody else think that we should maybe make a CD-ROM edition of Wikipedia sometime? (for libraries, etc.)-- Anon

Not for a few years -- but that is one of the ideas we are kicking around. --mav

Etymology

The OED says enkuklopaideia was the erroneous form that led to encyclopædia. I don't know Greek, so my transliterations may be in error. Ortolan88

This is puzzling. Greek enkuklopaideia becomes Latin encyclopaedia in the standard, correct transliteration. Greek ai = Latin ae; they had the same pronunciation in classical times so that's the most direct way of writing it. The change from ae to e is post-classical, when Latin ae shifted in pronunciation to become the same as long e. So if anything, e is less etymologically correct. Gritchka
As I understand currently, enkuklos paidiea (two words) was misread by c. 1500s authors as one word and Latinized by them. Ie, it's something of a bastardization. flux.books 12:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in ancient greek but shouldn't the correct greek spelling of enkyklios be something like ενκύκλιος? The transliteration of the current word εγκύκλιος would be egkyklios.

tobulax

The Greek spelling is with the gamma; it is the romanization which is irregular (having to do with the pronunciation of the gamma-kappa combination in some dialects); angelus (angel) is similar in that the Greek spelling is with double-gamma. --Tkinias 02:53, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've changed the transliteration "enkyklios" to "engkyklios" since the γκ-diphthong produces an [ŋ]-sound. See Greek Alphabet. Hymyly 00:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Cyclopedia is the old form of the word encyclopedia.

We sure? M-W lists the word as coming from the Greek enkyklios meaning something along the lines of course and paedeia meaning education or child-rearing. Btw, that would also make LMS wrong when he says encyclopedias aren't for educating. ;)

Er, no, it wouldn't. It would say something about the etymology of the word.

Ah, but etymology itself comes from the Greek etymos meaning true and logos meaning meaning, so clearly the etymology tells us the definition, by applying the logical technique of affirming the consequent (proof by assertion to mathematicians). Oh, and a smiley frequently means I'm kidding. :)

No, it's an alternative form, introduced more or less at the same time, and not much used. An "archaic" form would be more or less a good description. flux.books 12:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed the bit about encyclopædia being an "incorrect" spelling; despite what was claimed in the article here, that is not what OED says. OED says that encyclopædia (egkyklopaideia) is a faux Greek word based on a misreading of egkyklios paideia. (Interestingly, egkyklopaideia has been borrowed back into Modern Greek nonetheless.) Encyclopædia is the normal etymologic spelling of the word, and the spelling with e is the expected modernized form (cf. ether/æther, etc.). --Tkinias 02:58, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

First encyclopedia / first use of the word

Actually the credit for the earliest of British encylopaedist must go to Sir thomas Browne. His Pseudodoxia Epidemica describes itself in its opening page as an Encyclopaedia and ran into six editions (1646-1676) It was upon the shelves of many English households. (User:Norwikian)

Discussion still in there, but obviously true only in the most literal sense in that it called itself an encyclopedia. It is in no way a compendium of all accumulated knowledge, which is the encyclopedic vision pursued over the centuries. flux.books 12:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

H G Wells

H.G. Wells talking about the idea of an encyclopedia; maybe he was referring to Wikipedia :-): , or its possible complementary meta-encyclopedia in advance Encyclopedia Systematica http://c2.com/cgi-bin/wiki?EncyclopediaSystematica. See the link 'Simulating a global brain' there for a Wells-connex.

Special sections of it, historical, technical, scientific, artistic, e.g. will easily be reproduced for specific professional use. Based upon it, a series of summaries of greater or less fullness and simplicity, for the homes and studies of ordinary people, for the college and the school, can be continually issued and revised. In the hands of com-petent editors, educational directors and teachers, these condensa-tions and abstracts incorporated in the world educational system, will supply the humanity of the days before us, with a common un-derstanding and the conception of a common purpose and of a commonweal such as now we hardly dare dream of. And its creation is a way to world peace that can be followed without any very grave risk of collision with the warring political forces and the vested insti-tutional interests of today.

--(http://sherlock.berkeley.edu/wells/world_brain.html)

--User:Extro

Wells' World Brain is mentioned in the Wikipedia's article about itself, actually: Wikipedia. -- Stephen Gilbert 18:32, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A history of encyclopedias page?

I think the whole article might be better if we made "history of encycl" a new page and put a bit of detail on all the olf ones. Anyone agree? --BozMo|talk 15:41, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you mean the section about those before 1700, I say yes"! Apwoolrich 13:15, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Maybe, maybe not. If it's just a matter of length, that's what the table of contents is for - to find sections. Part of the point of studying history is to inform the present. It's clear that a lot of Wikipedians could benefit from understanding some of the history of the form of the encyclopedia, and moving the history to a separate page would make it far less likely that people would discuss the modern issues around encyclopedias in context. That is, there are some important things to learn from the history - though the lessons are not all clearly stated at the moment. flux.books 12:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, thinking about it, it could be a good idea. We could summarize in a few sentences with the link to try to encourage people to read some of it. I'd suggest including three chunks: the early and 17-20th c. history; and the list of historical works. It looks like most of the references list belongs with that as well, though Collison might be in both. Of course, that would highlight the fact that the main article needs more discussion of encyclopedias. flux.books 14:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Definition

Britannica defines an encyclopedia as a reference work, yet wikipedia only defined encyclopedia as a compendium. Wikipedia is not a reference work due to its open nature and lack of certainty about any article at any perticular time.

It would seem wikipedia is redefining the word encyclopedia to include itself. whats with that??

Why should Britannica's definition of "encyclopedia" be more accurate than Wikipedia's? Merriam-Webster defines it as follows: "a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject". You are correct that Wikipedia's "open nature and lack of certainty" make it less reliable than sources backed by an authority; however, the fine newspapers and magazines (and books, court cases, and so on) at Wikipedia as a press source would disagree with Wikipedia not being a reference work, as they all have used it as such. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In which court cases has Wikipedia ever been cited as authoritative? 66.53.17.220 22:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
There is a useful question here, which is whether Wikipedia should really strive to be a comprehensive discussion of knowledge, or focus on new topics, updates, matters not covered in other reference works, etc. A huge topic, no doubt covered in many discussions elsewhere. At some level wikipedia clearly aims to eventually cover everything, so for now it seems reasonable to call wikipedia an encyclopedia. And again there are useful lessons for wikipedians in the history of the genre. flux.books 14:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is

A) an [administrative] summary of relevant definitions and work-related matters (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);

B) a [behaviourist] detailed generalised typed response to massive typical stimuli (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);

C) a [computed] listing of articles for the general public; could be at different levels from different viewpoints (these) (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);

E) an [empirical] result of writing up the current paradigm (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);

I) an [ideal] format for reference by the general public (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);

J) a [judicial] way of educating criminals, criminologists, lawyers and a judiciary by abstracting impersonal details about judicial details, law or penal details by selected authorities; restricted by economic conditions; from personal knowledge or other sources via various drafting procedures (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);

K) an [epistemic] general study of a particular area (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);

L) a [logical] elaboration of Greek studies (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);

M) a [materialist] system of writings on various subjects chosen by its authors (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);

P) a [phenomenal] view in writing of one's world (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);

PS) the delusion that everything can be usefully summarized in a few pages (Anon.);

S) a [solipsic] recording of generalised thoughts about general subjects (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk).

Wikipedia is not a dictionary so the above list should never be in this article. --mav

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The above is intended to be encyclopedic and philosophical. So this should be in the original article (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk).

'Dictionary of ...' to list with the encyclopaedias?

It has bothered me for some time that this article does not list encyclopaedic works whose titles begin Dictionary of ... . At one time I thought these ought to be listed on the Dictionary page, but having recently re-read it, I see that it relates entirely to lexicographical works. Its a very fine article indeed, and I am loath to mess with its structure.

It has a disembiguation page which says the following, (I wrote the entry Biographical dictionaries):

  • An alphabetical sequence of articles relating to particular topics, eg dictionaries of medicine or engineering. Also biographical dictionaries. These can be regarded as being encyclopaedic in their treatment, being far more than just a list of words and their meaning.

I propose that we use the Encyclopadia page to list Dictionary of ... reference works, since they are essentially the same thing. Before I begin I shall welcome comments, please. Apwoolrich 13:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes a hard distinction to draw, but see the new page encyclopedic dictionary. Clearly many of the works you mention are more encyclopedias than dictionaries, especially early works, so they belong here as you suggest. flux.books 14:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Spelling section

In this paragraph from the section on the spelling of "encyclopedia"--quoted following my comments--I propose to remove all but the first sentence, or at least the majority of the rest of the paragraph. Reason--it covers information given in the (linked) Wiki article on American and British English spelling differences, thus is redundant and not necessary in this article focused on encyclopedias as such and not spelling differences, which belong in the latter page. If no one comments to the contrary within 3 weeks, I'll remove it when I return to this page. ~ Dpr

Due to differences in American and British English orthographic conventions, the spellings "encyclopaedia" and "encyclopedia" both see common use in British and Commonwealth- and American-influenced sources, respectively. (The British spelling is sometimes rendered encyclopædia, with the æ ligature). The digraph ae or æ, the normal Latin rendering of the Greek diphthong αι, is usually changed to e in American orthography, for example in other words from the root paid‐ such as paediatrician (American pediatrician). Contemporary British usage often makes the same simplification; in this case, though, the Oxford English Dictionary asserts that the spelling with æ "has been preserved from becoming obsolete by the fact that many of the works so called have Latin titles, as Encyclopædia Britannica", which use the spelling with æ in their names.

"human" knowledge=

Isn't the word human in the first sentence rather redundant or repetitious. I mean if anything else ever turned up with a written compendium of knowledge we'd hardly deny them use of the word? --BozMo|talk 15:31, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Should wikipedia be mentioned on this page? --NeuronExMachina 05:28, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WP is now mentioned. --BozMo|talk 15:41, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Guardian criticism

This wiki article has been criticized in the UK newspaper article mentioned at and linked at the top of this page. The critic was biased - a former editor of Encyclopedia Britannica - but some of his criticisms may be valid enough to help improve the page. Also note, this wiki article, along with the others mentioned in the Guardian article, will be receiving heightened public attention. Bwithh 14:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, in your effort to quickly post about this, you might not have had a chance to look at the article itself, or the article history. It is clear that the critic is commenting on an earlier version of the article - for example, the typo he takes pains to note was already corrected, and more importantly the article seems to have been substantially revised since he read it. So the big notice you have inserted at the top doesn't really qualify as a carefully considered edit, itself, as it's not accurate. It's also not specific enough to be helpful, it's a very broad brush stroke you have applied. Please edit your comments to make them accurate and useful, soon if possible given the nature of what's going on here.
To address some specifics in the Guardian article:
  • The critic was right in some respects, the article needed work and still does. I wouldn't defend the work there as entirely accurate, or complete - some of the history and much of the modern discussion could be expanded, and there is very little theory. But it had gotten quite a bit of work between when he read it and when the Guardian article was published.
  • And yes, whoever wrote the original discussion about the Pseudodoxia Epidemica was well off the mark in terms of their conclusions on the importance of that work. But that had already been rewritten to put it in better context. It's a bit longer than it deserves to be, but no longer as inaccurate as it was. As to "The 120-odd words on Browne ..." - yes, but about 30 of those 120 words use Browne's work as an illustration of a key historical and contextual point, that not all encyclopedias were organized alphabetically, and to explain one alternative. That is, those words aren't really about Browne - they are about encyclopedias.
Even granting the many shortcomings of the earlier and revised versions of the Encyclopedia article, Mr. McHenry (the critic) gets low marks as well:
  • "The article is of modest length at 2,000 words (compare Britannica's corresponding article at about 26,000 words)." wikipedia won't ever have a 26,000 word article about encyclopedias, that's not how wikipedia is structured. And the word count would have been a lot lower if, as suggested above, we had moved much of the discussion to a "history of encyclopedias" page. To do a word count on just this page, given how wikipedia is organized, is either fatuous or has entirely missed the point.
  • "The longest discussion of a particular work is ..." There is much more discussion of other specific encyclopedic works in wikipedia, but they are linked under separate articles. For example, it's certainly true the reference in the Encyclopedia article to the Encyclopédie should be more complete, for those who aren't made curious enough by what is already there to click the link. But McHenry and others could get a great deal more discussion about the Encyclopédie simply by clicking any of the links. In particular ...
  • "(And by the way, the full first edition had 35 volumes.)" It would seem the American and French scholars digitizing and translating the Encyclopédie think that the Encyclopédie had 28 volumes according a link included in the article on the Encyclopédie. The other seven volumes were later supplementary volumes, not edited by Diderot. It's a rather harsh implication he has made given those circumstances. flux.books 18:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
The present Britannica has about three sentences on Rees's Cyclopaedia — we have proper article. EB 1911 never had one. This is historical for Rees was a serious rival to EB6ed, and was in effect written out of the story. The present Britannica article skimps many historical ones. Wikipedia has been and will contnue to be the means for highlighting these. 62.7.134.179 21:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
It seems we have grounds for a rebuttal as I think I found another inaccuracy with the Gurdian article as I've explained here. If I am right (and this is all out of my league) how (or where more importantly) should we go about formulating a community response? --bodnotbod 22:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Please see also: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(news)#Guardian_article --bodnotbod 22:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW, they were completely exaggerating the quality of the Encyclopedia article in the EB. It begins with a stupid section discussing how much work it takes and how difficult it is to create an encyclopedia. Here it would be labelled clear NPOV and an indirect advertisement. Secondly, the actual content about encyclopedias themselves and their history is not much longer than our article. It actually devolves into a discussion about dictionaries and other reference works, so he is being disingenious about its length. He also fails to mention that we have entirely separate articles about these encyclopedias, while they have only one or two sentences in the article. It also has a bizarre section about the "American contribution" to the encyclopedia discussing Comptons and other which is also rather POV. And their discussion of EB is uniformly triumphalist and POV, which would be criticized here. Tfine80 21:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a good example of the dilution of content quality in the modern editions of EB. The encyclopaedia article in EB1911 is much better for historical information on them. EB has the problem of having to shoe-horn C20 information into the print version. The only way they can do this is to greatly condense information about earlier events or drop them entirely. EB 1911 was the last edition written mostly from a British/European perspective, and reflects that history and culture comprehensively. Later editions show their American ownership and preoccupations. WP allows the infinate addition of material EB has ignored. Apwoolrich 07:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I would note that EB also has a separate article about the Encyclopédie. The point is, it's silly for him to comment about whose is bigger, as his comments miss the point of what wikipedia is (and also why someone might not want 26,000 words). No denying there is some good info in their article, though. flux.books 15:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't place too much emphasis on the grades that the "experts" gave. They were clearly asked to give a grade on a scale from 0 to 10 without any guidelines on how they should arrive at this grade so they just pulled something out of the air. We should focus on the content of the criticism. The one on our Eliot articles, for example, actually indicates that there's nothing wrong with them! :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 15:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/n/c/Talk%7EEncyclopedia_Archive1_5769.html"