Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yahwe
i'm talking about the supposed 'value' of wikipedia.
if you want to argue that wikipedia is better than encyclopedia britanica then by all means do so.
but the obvious point you will be choosing to ignore is that the encyclopedia britanica is only used to teach children the absolute basics.
|
All encyclopedias simplify. As do all books which propose to give a summary/introduction to a field. As do most textbooks outside of those intended for advanced graduate level classes. However all of these are intended for a different audience - I don't want to have to slog my way through a 400 page book when all I want is a quick summary of scientology or current trends in the philosophy of action There's too much information in the world to read a series of books everytime you have a passing interest in something, although obviously youre going to need to do this if you want to have anything that even approaches knowledge of the field.
I'm not sure what your point is. Encylopedias arent intended to be a replacement for peer reviewed journals, and noone is claiming that they perform this function.