Is it still a requirement that an (online) encyclopedia has to be balanced?
By balance, critics of encyclopedias think of the content. If the publisher
advertises a reference work of general interest he is supposed to deliver a
balanced compendium on different subjects.
Many famous encyclopedias have been less balanced or universal as one might
expect. Pliny’s Naturalis historia dealt with ‘cultural’ subjects as it
did with ‘natural’ subjects, but obviously the bulk of the content was
about the earth and its living beings, about crafts and agriculture. The
visual arts found a place next to metallurgy and mineralogy.
In the 17th and 18th centuries, and even beyond, encyclopedias belonged
usually to one of two groups:
‘Dictionaries of the arts and sciences’ were occupied mainly with nature
and crafts. Note that science then included also theology. Examples: Lexicon
technicum (Harris), Cyclopaedia (Chambers), Deutsche Taschen Enzyklopädie
(Hasse).
‘Dictionaires historiques’ and ‘Konversationslexika’ had their focus on
history, geography and biography. Examples: Grand dictionnaire historique (Mor
éri), Ersch-Gruber.
During the 18th century the two types started to mix, and encyclopedias
became increasingly universal. Zedler’s Universal-Lexicon (a huge work of 64
volumes) was the champion of this evolution. [1]
According to Ulrike Spree the general lexika in Germany of the early 19th
century wanted to serve the development of a learned conversation, as a base
for the upcoming public opinion. These lexika were interested more in history
and politics than science (in the modern sence), and had to be up-to-date. In
Britain, it was the other way round. Encyclopaedia Britannica (EB) started in
1768 as a dictionary of the arts and sciences, only later the publishers
added geography, history and so on. ‘Not the significance at a given time,
but the importance of a subject by itself, had to be decisive for the
inclusion of an article into the lexicon.’ Later in the supplements after
1824 there was much more attention to politics. [2]
It remained difficult for encyclopedias to keep an overview and maintain
balance. Harvey Einbinder criticises how in the EB of 1958 the presidency of
Calvin Coolidge is given more space than Franklin D. Roosevelt’s with his
dramatic life, ‘a balance that reflects the EB’s haphazard editorial
standards’. [3]
Sierpinski pyramid by Solkoll, public domain
Just recently, a German professor of law complained in his vademecum for
students that there is no balance in Wikipedia. ‘Homer Simpson’ (the
cartoon character) has more lines than ‘Homer’ (the ancient author), and ‘
Robbie Williams’ more than ‘Béla Bartók’:
As long as inclusionists want to collect as much information as possible also
about obscure subjects (there is enough space for everything), while
exclusionists want to keep up quality and relevance (not everything has to be
mentioned in a lexicon), a unified policy will hardly be found. (Roland
Schimmel) [4]
There exists also another kind of lack of balance: Jeff Loveland finds it
striking how ambitious encyclopedias were at the beginning, and how much
impatient and sloppy at the end. Take Encyclopaedia Britannica, first
edition. A-B delivers as much material as M-Z does. In the Universal history
by Dennis de Coetlogon one-third of the text appeared under A-C. [5]
Because of a major difference, the readers of Wikipedia don’t have to bother
much. When you bought a printed encyclopedia you had the right to ask for a
good ‘balance’. But nobody buys Wikipedia, and the reader is happy when he
finds enough about the subjects he is interested in. It doesn’t matter to
him that other subjects are covered much better.
—–
Previously: A as in Advertisement
—–
[1] Jeff Loveland: An Alternative encyclopedia? Dennis de Coetlogon’s
Universal history of arts and sciences (1745). Voltaire Foundation, Oxford
2010, pp. 7/8.
[2] Ulrike Spree: Das Streben nach Wissen. Eine vergleichende
Gattungsgeschichte der populären Enzyklopädie in Deutschland und Groß
britannien im 19. Jahrhundert, Niemeyer 2000, pp. 36/37.
[3] Harvey Einbinder: The Myth of the Britannica. MacGibbon & Kee, London
1964 (reprint 1972), p. 148.
[4] http://www.fh-frankfurt.de/de/.media/~schimmel/wikipedia_aktuell.pdf p. 10
[5] Jeff Loveland: An Alternative encyclopedia? Dennis de Coetlogon’s
Universal history of arts and sciences (1745). Voltaire Foundation, Oxford
2010, pp. 88/89.
http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/decennial-abc-b-as-in-balance/
作者: Ziko van Dijk
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 118.169.36.72