83
Wikipedia’s Pyrrhic Victory
(www.newyorker.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2026
83 points (94.6% liked)
Technology
89039 readers
2529 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I don’t think this is the gotcha you think it is. You posted the etymology which is the origin of the word but not the modern definition.
Def.: Encyclopedia -
a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject
Emphasis is mine.
That's not really in agreement with your understanding of the encyclopedias either, I'd say. Encyclopedias contain [an unspecified amount of] information on all branches of knowledge. The branches are all of them, yes, but the exact amount of information provided from each subtopic of each branch is not necessarily endless. As the quoted "pillar" says.
It sure is, because my understanding is the dictionary definition. I don’t agree with the commenter you originally replied too either, but your reply, as I said, is not the gotcha you might think it was.