Comment on Is Wikipedia's Volunteer Model Facing a Generational Crisis?

• bleistift2@sopuli.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Let’s consult Wikipedia (emphasis mine) [1].

  Works of encyclopedic scope aim to convey the important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain, such as an encyclopedia of medicine, philosophy or law. Works vary in the breadth of material and the depth of discussion, depending on the target audience.

  [1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia#Four_major_ele…

  source

  • finalarbiter@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Historically, general encyclopedias were limited by the physical amount of space they took up. Wikipedia is not limited by the page and volume counts of physical media and we shouldn’t treat it as such.

    While I can agree that domain-specific encyclopedias should continue to limit the scope of their information to relevant topics, I see no reason that Wikipedia should follow suit. Who truly benefits from reducing and editorializing information, especially when the fundamental principle is the free and open flow of knowledge? Could Wikipedia stand to have writing on complex topics that is friendlier to the average joe? Sure, but that should never come at the expense of restricting the sum total of knowledge stored in its servers.

    source

    • Zombie@feddit.uk ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Wikipedia could certainly benefit from writing on complex topics that is friendlier to the average joe

      simple.wikipedia.org/…/Simple_English_Wikipedia

      source