h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I didn't have you down as a curmudgeon, Icy, but hold on:

>Data spawns a hell of a lot of meaningless numbers.

Data can consist largely of numbers, but in order to be called data they have to be meaningful to their compiler.

And what's this about Wikipedia being dull and monolithic? What sort of criticism is that to make of an encyclopedia?

I have had some of Gnomon's experiences: a friend wrote an article for Wikipedia about John Beckett, an Irish musician who died a few years ago. I gave him some personal reminiscences and Wiki refused them because they weren't backed up in published material. Reflecting on this I see their wisdom. They will go back in when my friend's book on John Beckett comes out.

Allowing personal research in Wiki would generate endless problems when material gets challenged. Fortunately it does not here.

Therefore this, and not Wiki, is the right place for wikivoyage-type material.

I have made several edits on Wikipeeja, but never been accused of vandalism. I'd like to hear Gnomon's story.

I've read about at least one person who edited erroneous information posted about himself, only to have it redacted.

This thread is making interesting reading.

I understand our desire to berate Wikipedia - after all, we have a friendly rivalry going, even though we aren't doing the same thing at all, as far as I can tell. Apples and oranges.

Yesterday, while I was preparing something for the Post, I stumbled across a wonderful Guide Entry, the one about LuLu the pot-bellied pig - A5849049. I read, I was enlightened about animal behaviour. I was charmed. I noted that LuLu performed her clever, life-saving trick on Presque Isle.

'Where's Presque Isle?' Elektra wondered. I was pretty sure I remembered that Presque Isle was on Lake Erie. I decided to look it up.

You see where this is going - Wiki gave me the info, and a map, and answered my query at a mouseclick. But it was h2g2 that provided the aha-moment.

I think that's what we're here for. To provide the aha-moments. To make the connections. To put it all into perspective. Not to be an encyclopedia. That's so 18th-century.

I've said this before, but it's worth repeating. My daughter when a child was interested in mythology. Her grandfather found a second-hand encyclopaedia on Mythology.

I asked her what she thought of it. She said it was no good.

"It doesn't tell you what you want to know, it just tells you everything."

Out of the mouths of babes...

Just the other day, I tried explaining the difference between a pepperoni and a jalapeño to a colleague. Wikipedia had descriptions of both, but neither page was of any use trying to explain the *difference.

Feel free to write an entry on that!

And very accurate too.

You use Wikipedia to find a quick fact* and you leave it. It's not really got any stickiness to it.

You come to h2g2 to read, to hang out, to chat and to be entertained and enlightened.





*or lie, who knows at times

{Data can consist largely of numbers, but in order to be called data they have to be meaningful to their compiler.}

It;'s the technical definition of data as opposed to information. Data consists of the raw measurements if you like. When they acquire context, they become what we call information.

{And what's this about Wikipedia being dull and monolithic? What sort of criticism is that to make of an encyclopedia?}

I'm not sure - show me the different sorts of criticism and I'll try to make a choice