Hoeveel waarde heeft een encyclopedie nog?
Vroeger had een encyclopedie nog waarde. Dat was in de tijd voor het internet en de tijd waarin de encyclopedie breed uitgemeten werd in diverse volumes. Deze werden genummerd van 1 tot ... Hoe meer boeken hoe beter.
Volgens de moderne Wikipedia werd de encyclopedie twee duizend jaar geleden uitgevonden en is sindsdien continue aangepast aan de nieuwe eisen van de tijd. De etymologie van het woord laat zien dat het om algemene (circulair, terugkerend, regelmatig vereist) en kennis of onderwijs gaat. Wanneer woordenboeken noodzakelijk zijn, dan zijn encyclopedieën het ook. Deze eerste zijn compacter en gericht op taal, de laatste zijn breder en gaan meer over algemene kennis.
Maar een encyclopedie kan ook thematisch vormgegeven zijn, zoals die over: [Stierenvechten anno nu].
Of een [niet specifiek zo bedoeld, maar wel te zien als een] encyclopedie van de oorlog.
Zelf zocht ik een versie over "Encyclopedie der professies." Een handwerk waar alle historische professies te vinden zouden zijn, maar die is er niet.
De Brittanica - die krijgt ook heel wat aandacht in Wikipedia over het onderwerp - blijft een referentie, maar aan de zoekresultaten te zien, ook bewijs dat een encyclopedie minder waard geworden is. Ik denk dat dit in het algemeen komt door de mindere waardering van experts en deskundigen in het algemeen. Tegenwoordig, maar vooral in een crisis is aan neutrale kennis weinig behoefte. En dan is de vraag in hoeverre Wikipedia nog neutraal is. Dat imago wil men wel hoog houden.
De toegankelijkheid van Wikipedia is wel groter dan die van de traditionele encyclopedie, maar toch nog lang niet zo ver dat die echt universele kennis "algemeen" beschikbaar komt en de kennis over die kennis, dus meta-kennis. Vooral voor dat laatste, moet nog het nodige gebeuren. Een eerste aanzet van een API is er wel. Maar kennis is nog niet gratis (toegankelijk) als ook universeel beschikbaar. En dan is de vraag: als dat wel zo zou zijn, wat zou dat aan deze wereld veranderen?
--
Kennisopbouw
-- PS. Als project, wat zou de bouw van een E. betekenen?
Building an encyclopedia is a massive undertaking that requires a significant amount of time, effort, and resources. The scope and scale of the project would depend on the specific goals and objectives of the encyclopedia.
Assuming we're talking about a comprehensive encyclopedia that covers a wide range of topics, including science, history, culture, and more, here's a rough estimate of the scope and scale of the project:
- Number of articles: 100,000 to 200,000 articles, each averaging around 1-2 pages in length. Total page count: 200,000 to 400,000 pages, assuming an average of 1-2 pages per article. Volume count: 20-40 volumes, assuming 10,000-20,000 pages per volume.
Content scope: The encyclopedia would cover a wide range of topics, including:
Science: physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, and more
History: world history, regional history, cultural history, and more
Culture: art, literature, music, film, and more
Technology: computer science, engineering, medicine, and more
Geography: countries, cities, regions, and more
Biographies: notable individuals from various fields
Content depth: The encyclopedia would aim to provide in-depth coverage of each topic, including:
Overview articles: providing a general introduction to the topic
In-depth articles: providing detailed information on specific aspects of the topic
Biographies: providing detailed information on notable individuals
Historical events: providing detailed information on significant historical events
Content style: The encyclopedia would aim to provide clear, concise, and engaging content, written in a style that is accessible to a wide range of readers.
Illustrations and graphics: The encyclopedia would include a wide range of illustrations and graphics, including:
Images: photographs, diagrams, charts, and more
Maps: geographical maps, historical maps, and more
Tables: statistical tables, comparison tables, and more
Charts: flowcharts, diagrams, and more
Digital version: The encyclopedia would be available in both print and digital formats, with the digital version including features such as:
Search functionality: allowing readers to quickly find specific articles and topics
Hyperlinks: allowing readers to navigate between related articles and topics
Multimedia content: including videos, audio clips, and interactive features
Team size: Building an encyclopedia of this scope and scale would require a team of around 100-200 people, including:
Editors: responsible for overseeing the content and ensuring its accuracy and quality
Writers: responsible for researching and writing the articles
Researchers: responsible for verifying the accuracy of the information and providing additional research support
Designers: responsible for designing the layout and visual elements of the encyclopedia
Illustrators: responsible for creating the illustrations and graphics
Timeline: Building an encyclopedia of this scope and scale would take around 5-10 years to complete, assuming a team of 100-200 people working full-time on the project.
Please note that these estimates are rough and may vary depending on the specific goals and objectives of the project. (LLama 3.1)
Kennisslijtage
Assuming the team of 150 professionals has worked for 7.5 years to complete the encyclopedia, it's likely that a significant portion of the content will be out of date by the time it's finished.
Here's a rough estimate of the percentage of content that may be out of date:
- Science and technology: 20-30% of the content may be out of date, as new discoveries and advancements are made in fields like physics, biology, computer science, and more.
- History: 10-20% of the content may be out of date, as new historical research and discoveries are made, and new perspectives on historical events emerge.
- Culture and society: 15-25% of the content may be out of date, as cultural and social trends change, and new movements and ideas emerge.
- Geography and politics: 10-20% of the content may be out of date, as borders change, new countries emerge, and political landscapes shift.
Overall, it's likely that around 15-25% of the content in the encyclopedia will be out of date by the time it's finished. This is because the world is constantly changing, and new information and discoveries are being made all the time.
To put this into perspective, here are some examples of how quickly information can become outdated:
- In the field of computer science, new programming languages and technologies emerge every few years, making older information obsolete.
- In the field of medicine, new treatments and discoveries are made regularly, making older information outdated.
- In the field of history, new research and discoveries are made regularly, challenging existing narratives and interpretations.
To mitigate this issue, the team could consider the following strategies:
- Regular updates: Plan for regular updates to the encyclopedia, either in print or digital form, to keep the content current and accurate.
- Digital version: Consider creating a digital version of the encyclopedia that can be easily updated and revised, rather than a print version that may become outdated more quickly.
- Focus on timeless topics: Focus on topics that are less likely to change over time, such as fundamental principles of science, historical events, and cultural movements.
- Use of general principles: Use general principles and concepts to describe topics, rather than specific details that may become outdated.
By using these strategies, the team can help ensure that the encyclopedia remains relevant and accurate for a longer period of time.
* - afbeelding (twee), For-sale.co.uk
De eerste afbeelding is van de Encyclopedie van Diderot, die gedigitaliseerd is door Google, maar zeer beperkt leesbaar. De waarde van het werk is vooral symbolisch of voor verzamelaars. Juist nu met AI zou men de tekst kunnen herstellen, en echt leesbaar digitaliseren (waar deleesbaarheid nu slechts onder de 20% ligt in de meeste gevallen), maar of dat gebeurt...
Reacties