Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2021 November 12

= November 12 =

Value and connection between reader's interest and encyclopedic coverage?
Greeting,

IMHO Wikipedia is more than 20 years now and I suppose we need prioritize further enrichment of the article Encylopedia too, in more aspects. Almost a year back, at this discussion board I had requested non–Wikipedia sources regarding some fundamentals and philosophy behind encyclopedia building.

In the same series latest question on my mind is, 'Are there any non–Wikipedia sources which explore 'value and connection between reader's interest and encyclopedic content coverage'.

Here I am not discussing Manuals of Style. We all know usually it is 'Manual of Style' of encyclopedias focuses on issues of reader centric access and presentation of selected content.

Rather what I would like to understand intellectual discourse among non–Wikipedia encyclopedists, editors and publishers regarding how 'encyclopedic content coverage' be independent of reader's influence still cater to audience's 'present reading interest'* in content coverage. If any sources become available it will help enrichment of the article Encyclopedia, I hope.


 * * Let me clarify a bit more:
 * Word 'present' relates to time scale of audience' contemporary interest. What previous generation was interested to know from an encyclopedic article today's audience may be expecting a different contemporary interests, and tomorrows generation will expect their contemporary interest. How an encyclopedist is supposed to balance his independence sans reader influence still an encyclopedia shall select information to cater reading / knowldge/ curiosity interests of contemporary audience? I wish to know discourse from  non–Wikipedia sources.

Thanks and warm regards

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 05:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that your question means "Who decides what articles are likely to be of interest to readers of an encyclopedia, other than Wikipedia?" As you know, WP articles are written by people who are interested in a particular topic. Pretty much every other encyclopedia will have an editorial board of acknowledged experts in their field who will make an informed decision about the content. The General Editor will have overall control. There may be also commissioning editors who invite other expert authors to write one or more articles.  There will be a Manual of Style for contributors which defines not the content, but the overall readability of articles, plus grammar, spelling, referencing, and so on; sub-editors make sure that the MoS is followed. One of my favourite examples of a print encyclopedia is the World Book Encyclopedia. The introduction in Volume 1 goes into detail about what I have just mentioned. The WBE also has a map department which produces comprehensive maps with a consistent style, and the pictures are uniformly excellent. Wikipedia has none of these things, and thus it's a sprawling mess utterly devoid of consistency, with very patchy coverage of some subjects. Some articles are highly technical, others are derisory. Certain subjects are very controversial, and WP makes it relatively easy to edit by people with an axe to grind, or determined to push - say - a particular nationalist view point. The Featured and Good articles show what can be achieved, but they make up only a tiny fraction of the whole enterprise. A search for "philosophy of encylopedias" brings up this D.Phil. dissertation from 2008, which might interest you. MinorProphet (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your interesting response. As such, at this stage, I was looking for more of pre–Wikipedia (if not then non–Wikipedia)  scholarship having experience or expertise in encyclopedia building responding to challenges about 'changes to content within the articles over the generation'. Editor boards are mechanism, I am interested in knowing their actual deliberations. Wikipedian deliberations are in open, pre Wikipedia encyclopedist deliberations might have been closed door and many lost without recording still some editor board members or publishers might have written about challenges while   prioritizing and balancing content within article.

For an example new generation reader of article USA may be interested in topics like 9/11, LGBT rights, on Climate change and less in cold war, every generation some new information adds up about USA so which to keep which to shift in separate article or skip altogether etc. For example research paper shared by you is interesting but new generation might think that is ten year old and not fresh enough and may be prioritizing some other contemporary info where as encyclopedia editor wishing to retain earlier information because he may not be as much influenced by reader priorities. Where as publisher may think giving a little more preference to readers reading requirement is better. How previous generation of encyclopedic used to deal with this difficulty.

Thanks once again and regards &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)