Talk:Encyclopedia
|
|
| Contents |
Encyclopedia Systematica
The passage beginning with 'Newest encyclopedia-making strategies' entered to the 29.5.05-version in section 'Encyclopedia making' was deleted within 2 hours phrased "orginal research". It could be reasonable to give it access to the public-reader and other administrators for critical revision.This would prevent administrators to come into the image of being censors.See also the acceptance of Encyclopedia Systematica-passages on the Internet and [1] (http://c2.com/cgi-bin/wiki?EncyclopediaSystematica).
I'm not an expert in ancient greek but shouldn't the correct greek spelling of enkyklios be something like ενκύκλιος? The transliteration of the current word εγκύκλιος would be egkyklios.
tobulax
- The Greek spelling is with the gamma; it is the romanization which is irregular (having to do with the pronunciation of the gamma-kappa combination in some dialects); angelus (angel) is similar in that the Greek spelling is with double-gamma. --Tkinias 02:53, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think this entry deserves to be developed much further, as it pretty much sets the compass for the entire project. --Seb
Cyclopedia is the old form of the word encyclopedia (http://www.wikipedia.org).
We sure? M-W lists the word as coming from the Greek enkyklios meaning something along the lines of course and paedeia meaning education or child-rearing. Btw, that would also make LMS wrong when he says encyclopedias (http://www.wikipedia.org) aren't for educating. ;)
Er, no, it wouldn't. It would say something about the etymology of the word.
Ah, but etymology itself comes from the Greek etymos meaning true and logos meaning meaning, so clearly the etymology tells us the definition, by applying the logical technique of affirming the consequent (proof by assertion to mathematicians). Oh, and a smiley frequently means I'm kidding. :)
An encyclopedia (http://www.wikipedia.org) is
A) an [administrative] summary of relevant definitions and work-related matters (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);
B) a [behaviourist] detailed generalised typed response to massive typical stimuli (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);
C) a [computed] listing of articles for the general public; could be at different levels from different viewpoints (these) (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);
E) an [empirical] result of writing up the current paradigm (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);
I) an [ideal] format for reference by the general public (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);
J) a [judicial] way of educating criminals, criminologists, lawyers and a judiciary by abstracting impersonal details about judicial details, law or penal details by selected authorities; restricted by economic conditions; from personal knowledge or other sources via various drafting procedures (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);
K) an [epistemic] general study of a particular area (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);
L) a [logical] elaboration of Greek studies (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);
M) a [materialist] system of writings on various subjects chosen by its authors (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);
P) a [phenomenal] view in writing of one's world (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);
PS) the delusion that everything can be usefully summarized in a few pages (Anon.);
S) a [solipsic] recording of generalised thoughts about general subjects (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk).
Wikipedia is not a dictionary so the above list should never be in this article. --mav
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (http://www.wikipedia.org). The above is intended to be encyclopedic and philosophical. So this should be in the original article (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk).
Does anybody else think that we should maybe make a CD-ROM edition of Wikipedia sometime? (for libraries, etc.)-- Anon
- Not for a few years -- but that is one of the ideas we are kicking around. --mav
The OED says enkuklopaideia was the erroneous form that led to encyclopędia. I don't know Greek, so my transliterations may be in error. Ortolan88
- This is puzzling. Greek enkuklopaideia becomes Latin encyclopaedia in the standard, correct transliteration. Greek ai = Latin ae; they had the same pronunciation in classical times so that's the most direct way of writing it. The change from ae to e is post-classical, when Latin ae shifted in pronunciation to become the same as long e. So if anything, e is less etymologically correct. Gritchka
Actually the credit for the earliest of British encylopaedist must go to Sir thomas Browne. His Pseudodoxia Epidemica describes itself in its opening page as an Encyclopaedia and ran into six editions (1646-1676) It was upon the shelves of many English households. (User:Norwikian)
H G Wells
H.G. Wells talking about the idea of an encyclopedia (http://www.wikipedia.org); maybe he was referring to Wikipedia :-):
Special sections of it, historical, technical, scientific, artistic, e.g. will easily be reproduced for specific professional use. Based upon it, a series of summaries of greater or less fullness and simplicity, for the homes and studies of ordinary people, for the college and the school, can be continually issued and revised. In the hands of com-petent editors, educational directors and teachers, these condensa-tions and abstracts incorporated in the world educational system, will supply the humanity of the days before us, with a common un-derstanding and the conception of a common purpose and of a commonweal such as now we hardly dare dream of. And its creation is a way to world peace that can be followed without any very grave risk of collision with the warring political forces and the vested insti-tutional interests of today. --(http://sherlock.berkeley.edu/wells/world_brain.html)
- Wells' World Brain is mentioned in the Wikipedia's article about itself, actually: Wikipedia. -- Stephen Gilbert 18:32, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
"human" knowledge
Isn't the word human in the first sentence rather redundant or repetitious. I mean if anything else ever turned up with a written compendium of knowledge we'd hardly deny them use of the word? --BozMo|talk 15:31, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Should wikipedia be mentioned on this page? --NeuronExMachina 05:28, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
WP is now mentioned. I think the whole article might be better if we made "history of encycl" a new page and put a bit of detail on all the olf ones. Anyone agree? --BozMo|talk 15:41, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- If you mean the section about those before 1700, I say yes"! Apwoolrich 13:15, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"Correct" spelling
I removed the bit about encyclopędia being an "incorrect" spelling; despite what was claimed in the article here, that is not what OED says. OED says that encyclopędia (egkyklopaideia) is a faux Greek word based on a misreading of egkyklios paideia. (Interestingly, egkyklopaideia has been borrowed back into Modern Greek nonetheless.) Encyclopędia is the normal etymologic spelling of the word, and the spelling with e is the expected modernized form (cf. ether/ęther, etc.). --Tkinias 02:58, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Britannica defines an encyclopedia as a reference work, yet wikipedia only defined encyclopedia as a compendium. Wikipedia is not a reference work due to its open nature and lack of certainty about any article at any perticular time.
It would seem wikipedia is redefining the word encyclopedia to include itself. whats with that??
- Why should Britannica's definition of "encyclopedia" be more accurate than Wikipedia's? Merriam-Webster defines (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=encyclopedia&x=0&y=0) it as follows: "a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject". You are correct that Wikipedia's "open nature and lack of certainty" make it less reliable than sources backed by an authority; however, the fine newspapers and magazines (and books, court cases, and so on) at Wikipedia as a press source would disagree with Wikipedia not being a reference work, as they all have used it as such. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
'Dictionary of ...' to list with the encyclopaedias?
It has bothered me for some time that this article does not list encyclopaedic works whose titles begin Dictionary of ... . At one time I thought these ought to be listed on the Dictionary page, but having recently re-read it, I see that it relates entirely to lexicographical works. Its a very fine article indeed, and I am loath to mess with its structure.
It has a disembiguation page which says the following, (I wrote the entry Biographical dictionaries):
- An alphabetical sequence of articles relating to particular topics, eg dictionaries of medicine or engineering. Also biographical dictionaries. These can be regarded as being encyclopaedic in their treatment, being far more than just a list of words and their meaning.
I propose that we use the Encyclopadia page to list Dictionary of ... reference works, since they are essentially the same thing. Before I begin I shall welcome comments, please. Apwoolrich 13:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)