An encyclopedia is, by definition, a compendium of information. I would add that the information must read as dry as possible, presenting the facts without any meandering about trying to be overly interesting. You might say an encyclopedia reads like a technical manual for a digital watch. Even Wikipedia, that bastion of information written entirely by its own users, ruthlessly edits out any needlessly entertaining verbiage. It seems that Wikipedia’s goal is to resemble Britannica’s humorless, priggish, puritanical and self-important style as closely as possible, but with all-original documents.
Why not go ahead and publicly state your policy that articles will only be approved if an article of the same title also appears in the Encyclopedia Britannica? That would save a lot of time from people who want to be interesting.
But I really shouldn’t complain about Wikipedia. It is free, after all. And nearly as accurate as the mighty Britannica beast is itself. Try looking up something on the Britannica website and you’re prompted to upgrade to a premium account. So, in reality, I can’t really make a comparison of Wikipedia v. Britannica, because I can’t really look at Britannica’s material. All I know is that’s what it seemslike Wikipedia is doing.
And the point to all of this? It’s simple: I want my articles to be entertaining as well as informational. Give me fun facts as well as the stuff we must learn by rote. Of course, there arises the problem of accuracy again. If you’ve got people hamming it up all over the place, there’s sure to be a lot more errors. People would report on urban legends as fact. But I think I’ve got a way to solve that problem. You’d simply have to make sure that everyone understands that, in the event that reality and the material do not match up, reality is the one that is wrong. Here’s a bit of legalese I’ve prepared to satisfy this end (supposing that our new encyclopedia’s name is Coolpedia):
In the event that information presented in the Coolpedia is found to be in direct conflict with the ‘presumed’ reality of any topic specified or unspecified, Coolpedia’s stance is that it represents the more actual reflection of accuracy and should be acknowledged as such. If circumstances are found still that suggest a conflict between a Coolpedia entry and a ‘presumed’ reality, it is the official stance of the Coolpedia Corporation that the ‘presumed’ reality is incorrect and that Coolpedia and all information presented therein is thereby factual and complete in dynamic. Therefore, the Coolpedia is a more accurate representation of reality than any specified or unspecified ‘presumed’ reality.
There now. That takes care of any unnecessary lawsuits that might arise due to errors, right? (For the record, I doubt I would use “Coolpedia” as the name, but if anyone does and wants to pay me royalties for coming up with the idea, I am at their disposal.) But I’m not saying that I would want to read information that is wildly inaccurate. No, I just want accurate information to be passed on to me in a way that is pleasing, that might even make me chuckle or gasp once in a while. Is that too much to ask? And what kind of participation might someone get if they attempted to take on a venture like that themselves? “Our business model is to be truthful AND entertaining, factual as well as fun.” Now that’s a business model I can get behind. Any investors willing to throw some cash in my direction to get the venture started…I remain at their disposal, as always :)
Really, what’s so difficult about this idea? I just want to catalog everything that exists, in a fun, entertaining way. I think people will come back for that again and again. I would. Jump on board.
Coolpedia
An encyclopedia is, by definition, a compendium of information. I would add that the information must read as dry as possible, presenting the facts without any meandering about trying to be overly interesting. You might say an encyclopedia reads like a technical manual for a digital watch. Even Wikipedia, that bastion of information written entirely by its own users, ruthlessly edits out any needlessly entertaining verbiage. It seems that Wikipedia’s goal is to resemble Britannica’s humorless, priggish, puritanical and self-important style as closely as possible, but with all-original documents.
Why not go ahead and publicly state your policy that articles will only be approved if an article of the same title also appears in the Encyclopedia Britannica? That would save a lot of time from people who want to be interesting.
But I really shouldn’t complain about Wikipedia. It is free, after all. And nearly as accurate as the mighty Britannica beast is itself. Try looking up something on the Britannica website and you’re prompted to upgrade to a premium account. So, in reality, I can’t really make a comparison of Wikipedia v. Britannica, because I can’t really look at Britannica’s material. All I know is that’s what it seemslike Wikipedia is doing.
And the point to all of this? It’s simple: I want my articles to be entertaining as well as informational. Give me fun facts as well as the stuff we must learn by rote. Of course, there arises the problem of accuracy again. If you’ve got people hamming it up all over the place, there’s sure to be a lot more errors. People would report on urban legends as fact. But I think I’ve got a way to solve that problem. You’d simply have to make sure that everyone understands that, in the event that reality and the material do not match up, reality is the one that is wrong. Here’s a bit of legalese I’ve prepared to satisfy this end (supposing that our new encyclopedia’s name is Coolpedia):
There now. That takes care of any unnecessary lawsuits that might arise due to errors, right? (For the record, I doubt I would use “Coolpedia” as the name, but if anyone does and wants to pay me royalties for coming up with the idea, I am at their disposal.) But I’m not saying that I would want to read information that is wildly inaccurate. No, I just want accurate information to be passed on to me in a way that is pleasing, that might even make me chuckle or gasp once in a while. Is that too much to ask? And what kind of participation might someone get if they attempted to take on a venture like that themselves? “Our business model is to be truthful AND entertaining, factual as well as fun.” Now that’s a business model I can get behind. Any investors willing to throw some cash in my direction to get the venture started…I remain at their disposal, as always :)
Really, what’s so difficult about this idea? I just want to catalog everything that exists, in a fun, entertaining way. I think people will come back for that again and again. I would. Jump on board.