In the country that talks about Philipp Blom’s book on the vicissitudes of the construction of L’Encyclop die, and makes some interesting comparisons, among which is this: see Blom in common as in the work of the eighteenth century, on the Internet “is also great articles written by the great thinkers with the most trivial things.” Our Products are sometimes as giants and sometimes as dwarfs. “This impressive compendium of knowledge that was officially called Encyclop die, ou dictionnarie raisonn des sciences, des arts et des m tiers, par une societe de gens de lettres, can be seen as an antecedent to Wikipedia, the free on the net.”Of course there is a relationship. The Encyclop die was the first collective library of knowledge that was done. Wikipedia is all good and all the faults of the Encyclop die: interesting articles and other utterly useless, impartial and objective articles and other ideological positions and of all concerned. Both the Encyclop die and Wikipedia are in moments of history where it is believed that knowledge is highly fragmented. I’m interested, especially the last sentence because it reflects something that largely explains the success of wikipedia.Although apparently very easy to search the Internet, for many people enter the network is literally going down a huge mixed bag where one is, simultaneously, aware of two things: that there is all the knowledge and that this is intangible. Problems of finding information on the Internet are becoming more pressing and in the future, this will become a field of extraordinary social and political struggle to control information received by citizens: who controls, and no information because the existence of the Internet is uncontrollable, but its documentation, their management, their access will have an area of exceptional power at your fingertips. Wikipedia’s success is that it offers a library of knowledge limpita and tidy. In that sense, the wikipedia, I think, is a testing ground for that future.Those working more closely with sectors of the population with a cultural level not yet developed (mostly young …) are fully aware that wikipedia is becoming a primary source of information for them (substitute, even, reading newspapers and magazines as a means of in-training). In my opinion, and without fear of appearing boastful, we must consciously take very seriously our social responsibility in this regard: the rigor in the writing of articles, neutrality and the correct linguistic expression should be permanently remembered principles. Is on us to avoid the temptation of endosiarnos or allow others to fall at our expense to that temptation. It occurs to me that this is a good argument for, as far as possible, prevent the entry of private external control advertising on wikipedia. – Camima Mar I like the concept on which we can be the spearhead of a “second enlightenment”, this time globally. Thank Escarlati, is a beautiful note. Lourdes messages here Wow, that metaphor comparing the Encyclopedia inverted with wikpedia rather than backwards, almost makes me mourn. respected right We are the pioneers, pioneers! Now I’m going to blush, many congratulations for something that after all I have not written it. Like when I read The Republic back to amaze me of the similarities with today. A The Britannica, Encarta and others, are the past. Who knows, as the third generation of Encyclopedists talk of us as we talk about Diderot.
