[PW] Grading Wikipedia

[Bye, Dan J]

Yes, you're right.  I've tended to understand "monograph" to mean something written by an individual about a particular subject - both "monos" in other words.  But you're right, that's not necessarily so.  It's not the "multiple authors" element that differentiates Britannica from Wikipedia, per se.

But the point stands, regardless of terminology.  The values (not "value") of a detailed article on a subject written by an expert and maybe edited are very different from those of a detailed article on a subject put together by a number of writers, of different levels of expertise, through open discussion, argument and compromise.    It's the difference between a single vision (even if its the single vision of multiple authors, with all the arguments that implies), and multiple competing visions.

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: project-wombat-bounces at lists.project-wombat.org 
> [mailto:project-wombat-bounces at lists.project-wombat.org] On 
> Behalf Of Michael Hart
> Sent: 04 May 2007 17:45
> To: list at project-wombat.org
> Subject: Re: [PW] Grading Wikipedia
> 
> 
> On Fri, 4 May 2007, David Klappholz wrote:
> 
> > At 06:34 AM 5/4/2007, you wrote:
> >> Britannica and Wikipedia are, really entirely different beasts.  
> >> Britannica's article are monographs.  Wikipedias are not, 
> at least in 
> >> principle.
> >
> > I thought a monograph is an article or book on a single 
> subject; you 
> > seem to be implying that it's an article or a book written 
> by a single 
> > individual.
> >
> >> The values of each are quite different.
> 
> The definitions of each might be a little different, but a 
> value is certainly independent of definition.
> 
> An article can be a monograph, a monograph can be an article, 
> and as much of the definition of monograph is about the 
> author as is about the limited subject matter.  Since the 
> mono refers to the subject matter, and not the author, there 
> can be author or authors to a single monograph.
> 
> If the reader is sufficiently myopic, s/he could try to 
> state, for the record, that from their microscopic 
> perspective, there was more than one subject included, but 
> this would normally be filed under "pedantic," "pegagogic," 
> or the like.
> 
> 
> Michael
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Project Wombat
> list at project-wombat.org
> http://www.project-wombat.org/
>