E 百科全書 Decennial ABC: E as in Encyclopedia Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia? 維基百科是一部百科全書嗎？ In her 2010 PhD thesis, Daniela Pscheida writes constantly about ‘the so-called online encyclopedia Wikipedia’ and ultimately explains why Wikipedia according to her is no encyclopedia. She thinks that Wikipedia misunderstood its own identity: *On the one hand, Wikipedia sees itself in the tradition of encyclopedias. *On the other hand, Wikipedia exceeds the limits of the genre encyclopedia by accepting new topics such as contemporary events. Wikipedia to her is a database. [1] 在她2010年的博士論文中，Daniela Pscheida ..並解釋了為什麼維基百科不是百科全書。 她認為維基百科誤解了自己的身份。 * 一方面，維基百科將自己視為傳統的百科全書之列。 * 在另一方面，維基百科超越了百科全書學派，接納了全新的題材，例如維基百科可以寫 當代的事件。 維基百科對她來說是一部資料庫。 Maybe Daniela Pscheida’s opinions relate to the fact that she describes Wikipedia quite well and extensively but (for any reason) did not notice our rule No Original Research. At the end, she even recommends that scholars establish new theories via Wikipedia, aside the traditional way of peer-review. 也許 Daniela Pscheida 描述維基百科的許多觀點非常好，貼近事實且全面，但是她忽略 了我們的一項規則，「拒絕原創研究」。在文末，她還建議學者在傳統的同行評審之外， 藉由維基百科來建立新的理論。 Whether Wikipedia is an encyclopedia or not, we can argue. About this last thing, we can’t. Sorry. 維基百科是否是一部百科全書，這我們可以討論。但關於最後一點，抱歉，我們不能接受 。 Modern encyclopedias and our concept of an encyclopedia were shaped in the 18th century. Earlier, the notion and the subject already existed, but were not linked the way we tend to do nowadays. The ancient Greek term is of uncertain etymology. Paul Scalich’s Encyclopaedia of 1539 was the first reference work to have the word in its title. [2] 現代的百科全書以及我們對於百科全書的概念成形於18世紀。 Not only are there a lot of expressions for an encyclopedia, the content was very diverse and presented in different ways. Based on that, it is difficult to exclude a work from the list of encyclopedias if it does not match to what somebody has in mind. An encyclopedia does not cover contemporary events and things? It does, this was the main intention of the original ‘Konversations-Lexika’, to capture the Zeitgeist and help the reader to participate in conversations about society and politics. 百科全書不包含當代事件題材？確實如此，這意涵主要來自於「會話辭典」，為了捕捉時 代精神並協助讀者參與到關於社會與政治的對話。 Ulrike Spree wrote that people thinking about encyclopedias don’t have a list of criteria in mind, but prototypes. In the prefaces of their works, the authors or publishers file their work in the tradition of encyclopedias, using other encyclopedias as model or as counter-example. Wikipedia is not different. Who was the biggest Wikipedia critic?誰是最大的維基百科評論者? For example, it seems to be more common in Germany than in the English-speaking world that readers complain about the length of Wikipedia articles. According to them, an encyclopedia consists of rather short articles. This may relate to the fact that in the German-speaking world the most popular traditional encyclopedia was Brockhaus, a short-article-encyclopedia. 舉例來說，比起英語世界而言，德文版似乎更常見到讀者在抱怨維基百科文章的長度。根 據他們的抱怨內容，一部百科全書(應)包含相當短的文章。這可能與一個事實有關，在德 文世界裡，最廣為使用的百科全書是 Brockhaus ，一部簡短文章的百科全書。 In 2005, the German language Wikipedians had a discussion about footnotes, whether to use them in articles. Several of them said that footnotes are not used in an encyclopedia. Again, it depends on the historical model you follow. 在2005年，德文維基百科有過一次關於文章中該不該包含注腳的討論。他們之中的許多人 認為，註腳不曾用於百科全書之中。 In 2007 German Stern magazine presented a close comparison of Brockhaus and Wikipedia, in which Wikipedia appeared to be the better encyclopedia, Klaus Holoch said that the Wikipedia principle is interesting. But Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia (‘Lexikon’), he claimed, because it is gratuitous and unchecked. 2007年德國Stern雜誌刊出一則維基百科與 Brockhaus百科的比較，維基百科相比之下更 形出色，Klaus Holoch則稱維基百科的原理是有趣的。他主張維基百科不是一部百科全書 ，因為他是free(或無目的的)，且內容是未經校對的。 Incidentally, Klaus Holoch was the chief sales representative of Brockhaus. 順帶一提，Klaus Holoch是Brockhaus百科全書的銷售代表。 —– Previously: A as in Advertisement, B as in Balance, C as in Cooperations, D as in Deletions —– [1] Daniela Pscheida: Das Wikipedia-Universum. Wie das Internet unsere Wissenskultur verändert. transcript, Bielefeld 2010, pp. 442-446. [2] Ulrike Spree: Das Streben nach Wissen. Eine vergleichende Gattungsgeschichte der populären Enzyklopädie in Deutschland und Groß britannien im 19. Jahrhundert, Niemeyer 2000, p. 17/18. --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 118.169.36.72