What is Wikipedia?
Or: The 1991 problem
As I sort-of argue in my research proposal, Wikipedia isn’t an encyclopedia, but that’s the best word we’ve got. (Actually I called it a “useful shorthand,” but I meant that to be backhanded.) Given its unbound, dynamic, hyperlinked nature, we just don’t have the vocabulary to really describe what Wikipedia is, so we use the word encyclopedia as a familiar point of reference.
Call it the 1991 Problem. We’re still stuck with the language of 1991 while discussing the technologies of 2008.
Imagine yourself trying to describe an iPhone to an average Joe from 1991. By calling it a phone, you instantly constrain the fellow’s sense of what you’re describing. “Well, yes, it’s a telephone. But it doesn’t have any wires and you can use it from anywhere. Also, the whole thing is a computer that you operate by touching the screen. And it’s sort of a hyper-charged Walkman, too. Oh, and it can tell you where you are on a map, and which of your friends are nearby, and where the nearest pizza place is. And don’t get me started on visual voicemail …”
The iPhone is to the telephone what Wikipedia is to the encyclopedia.
en · cy · clo · pe · di · a [en-sahy-kluh-pee-dee-uh] - noun - 1) a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject.
When we say “encyclopedia,” that’s (^) what’s running through the head of Joe from 1991. Wikipedia encompasses a compendium of fantastically diverse pages, some of which are merely collections of links to other pages, each of which features a thoughtful conversation about the material included or excluded from the page. It’s a set of procedures for organizing vast and diverse subsets of information. It’s a sizeable and devoted community. It’s a Web application. “Encyclopedia” doesn’t even begin to cover it.
I want there to be a 1991 problem for news. I want to make a news site so novel and amazing Joe wouldn’t even know what hit him.
Related posts:
- The W-bomb You can’t tell from my blogging, but I’ve gotten rather...
The Oxford English Dictionary’s definition might be more useful:
1. The circle of learning; a general course of instruction.
2. A literary work containing extensive information on all branches of knowledge, usually arranged in alphabetical order.
The word in this sense appears first as the title of certain works published in the 17th cent. esp. that of Alstedius (see quot. 1819).
b. Sometimes applied spec. to the French work ‘Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des Sciences, des Arts, et des Métiers’ (1751-1765), by Diderot, D’Alembert, and other eminent scholars and men of science.
3. An elaborate and exhaustive repertory of information on all the branches of some particular art or department of knowledge; esp. one arranged in alphabetical order.
In particular, I love the notion that an encyclopedia is both “a general course of education” and “an elaborate and exhaustive reportory of information.”
The one OED assumption that must be relaxed for Wikipedia is alphabetical arrangement.
What is the web analogue to alphabetical arrangement? Hierarchical arrangement? Interlinked arrangement?
[N.B. the etymology of encyclopedia: late L. encyclopædia, a. pseudo-Gr. {elenis}{gamma}{kappa}{upsilon}{kappa}{lambda}{omicron}{pi}{alpha}{iota}{delta}{epsilon}{giacu}{alpha}, an erroneous form (said to be a false reading) occurring in MSS. of Quintilian, Pliny, and Galen, for {elenis}{gamma}{kappa}{guacu}{kappa}{lambda}{iota}{omicron}{fsigma} {pi}{alpha}{iota}{delta}{epsilon}{giacu}{alpha} ‘encyclical education’, the circle of arts and sciences considered by the Greeks as essential to a liberal education (cf. ENCYCLICAL A. 1).
The spelling with æ has been preserved from becoming obs. by the fact that many of the works so called have Latin titles, as Encyclopædia Britannica, Londinensis, etc.]
Tim
20 Sep 08 at 6:28 pm
I like your analogy. I might add that the issue isn’t just language, but experience. A better term for it would be a big “wiki”. Because that is what Wikipedia is. But we call it an encyclopedia because so few people have ever experienced a wiki - but they have seen an encyclopedia before, so that’s how we relate.
Peter Edstrom
21 Sep 08 at 10:14 pm
[...] I mentioned in my last post, “encyclopedia” is too small and ancient a word to describe Wikipedia. The site has no [...]
The W-bomb
22 Sep 08 at 6:45 pm
Tim, from your comment, I love the phrase “encyclical education.” Encyclowiki’s also pretty fun to say. Is it too late to lobby for a change?
Matt
22 Sep 08 at 6:48 pm
[...] table. The beat bliki (ouch).1 The news brain. We’ll know what to call it when we see it. [Cf. "What is Wikipedia?: Or, the 1991 problem," [...]
Not to overhype this, but … at Newsless.org
2 Oct 08 at 4:49 pm