Home
Search
Register
Log inThe Encyclopedia of the Future
Page 1 of 1
The Encyclopedia of the Future
by Soham321 Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:49 pm
The Encyclopedia of the Future (EF) should have the following features:
1. Any article pertaining to science, medicine, and engineering should be written by experts. Usage of Wikis should be avoided. Generalists can write comments on the article talk page, but the methodology to be followed is "the generalist proposes, the specialist disposes."
2. Any article pertaining to psychology, economics, political science, geography, demography, sociology, anthropology, archaeology, jurisprudence, history, and linguistics should all be written following the methodology described in point 1.
The reason is that these are specialized topics. Foolish debates like what is science and what is pseudoscience should be decided by experts, not generalists. (The WP page on Acupuncture says it is a pseudoscience ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acupuncture ); but it is possible to obtain treatment through Acupuncture at the Mayo Clinic ( http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/acupuncture/care-at-mayo-clinic/why-choose-mayo-clinic/prc-20020778 )
Further, the fact that medical related WP articles are full of (dangerous) errors will be avoided. (in this connection, see http://www.bbc.com/news/health-27586356 and http://time.com/118904/study-dont-trust-wikipedia-when-it-comes-to-your-health/ )
3. Only for articles pertaining to content that does not require a knowledge of specialized knowledge can wikis be considered for crowd sourced content creation. An example of such an article would be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toast_sandwich
1. Any article pertaining to science, medicine, and engineering should be written by experts. Usage of Wikis should be avoided. Generalists can write comments on the article talk page, but the methodology to be followed is "the generalist proposes, the specialist disposes."
2. Any article pertaining to psychology, economics, political science, geography, demography, sociology, anthropology, archaeology, jurisprudence, history, and linguistics should all be written following the methodology described in point 1.
The reason is that these are specialized topics. Foolish debates like what is science and what is pseudoscience should be decided by experts, not generalists. (The WP page on Acupuncture says it is a pseudoscience ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acupuncture ); but it is possible to obtain treatment through Acupuncture at the Mayo Clinic ( http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/acupuncture/care-at-mayo-clinic/why-choose-mayo-clinic/prc-20020778 )
Further, the fact that medical related WP articles are full of (dangerous) errors will be avoided. (in this connection, see http://www.bbc.com/news/health-27586356 and http://time.com/118904/study-dont-trust-wikipedia-when-it-comes-to-your-health/ )
3. Only for articles pertaining to content that does not require a knowledge of specialized knowledge can wikis be considered for crowd sourced content creation. An example of such an article would be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toast_sandwich
Soham321- Posts : 42
Join date : 2017-02-14
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum