On 12 August 2011 20:59, George Herbert <george.herb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:53 PM, geni <geni...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 12 August 2011 20:24, George Herbert <george.herb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> We still have wide gaps in knowledge coverage. Not in the most common >>> areas, but in many specialized areas, where they're not heavily >>> geek-populated. >>> >> >> Yes but those don't have much to do with normal applications of >> encyclopedias. > > Sure they do. The question is what coverage you want in the encyclopedia. > > You may not be a construction guy, but wouldn't it be useful if you > could say "Hmm, what are those standardized 1.5 inch square open metal > channels used everywhere in construction?" and find [[Strut channel]] > on Wikipedia. > > And a few thousand other construction things I haven't had time to add, yet. > > And engineering. > > All these specialized things are encyclopedic, and matter in the > world, even if they're not geek-significant. There's no reason not to > define encyclopedic as inclusive of topics such as these.
You appear to be confusing "articles needed for normal applications of encyclopedias." and encyclopedic. [[Nabu-apla-iddina]] is encyclopedic, a Babylonian king no less, however history shows that encyclopedias can function just fine without having an article on him. -- geni _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
