Me too, I do not edit wikipedia. Perhaps I start one day. Until then a reflection on why is this is to be written. It has to do with what I think on encyclopedism as such--on conventional exemplars like the Encyclopedia Britannica as well as the 'new' encyclopedia that everyone can edit. (Meaning everyone with i-net access.) In the first place regarding both representations I do not so much focus on "quality of article" [read how much truth and untruth contains article], but on what is represented. For a radical contextualist the answerability of "who writes" and "for whom is written" are necessary conditions to understand "what is written" when addressing a text. Here from the conventional to the new form of encyclopedia nothing significant has changed--au contraire. The group of authors is not trackbackable at all anymore. Anyway, any encyclopedia article is a historic and ethnographic account which again makes my excitement on the subject of encyclopedism as one of THE phenomena of 'modern times'. The definitions of what we know and of what we dont know have been secularized.

Marvellous Stephen Colbert recently has reflected the topic, too. YouTube Video ~4,50 min. Don't miss it!

... Comment