On 11/6/03 5:32 PM, "James Duffy" jtdire@hotmail.com wrote:
There are certain things that are utterly and completely irrelevant to encyclopedias. Follow Jimbo's argument about paper and should a medical book about colon cancer also include articles on Manchester United, a biography of George Bush also mention mosquitos, a non-paper book on Napoleon's sex life mention DW's edits of sports pages on wikipedia?
Would they do so? Of course not. A medical book or a biography only can contain what is relevant, irrespective of whether there is room to contain something else. Ditto with encyclopedias. The above articles have no relevance to encyclopedic content. Normal coverage of atrocities don't even mention each individual victims, let alone give them /individual/ biographical entries that tell us they were a disco-dancer. What next? Include details of how long Tsar Nicholas like to grow his nail on his left big toe? Give details of who made Eamon de Valera's glasses? Discuss the weaving pattern used to make Mother Teresa's garments. Come of it. That approach would be to encyclopedias what the Muppet Show is to studying animal husbandry.
Your assertion that you know the bounds of the ideal encyclopedia is presumptive. An encyclopedia is a *comprehensive, inclusive* reference. It should include information about colon cancer, Manchester United, George Bush, mosquitos, Muppets, animal husbandry, Napoleon's sex life, who made Eamon de Valera's glasses, the weaving pattern used to make Mother Teresa's garments, etc.
If it only included the length of Tsar Nicholas's toenails it would be a farce. But when it includes that information as one element of millions, it starts to resemble an encyclopedia.
One of the great flaws with the traditional approach to history is its bias towards the narrative of the hero--that the current world is best understood as a single dramatic storyline with a few important protagonists and antagonists. Perhaps you believe that is a complete and accurate representation of the world, but I don't. I believe that the world, society, etc. are best understood as products of the interaction of billions of individuals. To gain a perfectly accurate picture of the world, we'd need to know all of their stories. The closer we come to that the better.
Of course, one would want to start with those that are collectively accepted as pivotal.
But we should not exclude knowledge in the pursuit of understanding.