Jump to content
Science Forums

Should All Days On Earth Get Their Own Wikipedia Page?


Recommended Posts

Can all days get their own Wikipedia or encyclopaedia page? Days are made up of thoughts, routine activities, internet discussions and internet browsing, business meetings, university lectures, watching television, cooking food, reading books, travelling to and fro, shopping, working, heated arguments, police investigations, political scandals, news coverage, parties, revisiting old memories, looking at the night sky, making scientific discoveries etc..

 

What if all of this was accounted for on Wikipedia - for every day of every year?

Edited by Mariel33
Link to post
Share on other sites

But is this a good thing ?

 

Hypothetically, it would mean that anyone's woodland or forest experience in history would get documented - the status quo is that a forest experience only gets documented if it's tied to a celebrity, or to a particular context.

In the past, I've visited woodlands and thought about ending all nations because of the power of the trees, green fields and the sun around me - so this could get documented.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypothetically, it would mean that anyone's woodland or forest experience in history would get documented - the status quo is that a forest experience only gets documented if it's tied to a celebrity, or to a particular context.

That’s not a status quo, it’s Wikipedia’s notability guideline

 

It’s important to understand that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a weblog. Encyclopedias are ternary sources – that is, they refer to sources that refer to primary sources. An account of a walk in the woods is a primary source. An anthology or study of such accounts is secondary. An encyclopedia article about the subject of walks in the woods is ternary.

 

In the past, I've visited woodlands and thought about ending all nations because of the power of the trees, green fields and the sun around me - so this could get documented.

So share your experience by posting text or video on one of the many websites that allow this. That’s what they’re for, and Wikipedia is not.

 

… the status quo is that a forest experience only gets documented if it's tied to a celebrity, or to a particular context

I’ve never seen an thing about a forest experience tied to a celebrity. Can you link to an example?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...

.

Is that source an acceptable reference on this forum?

 

No one considers Wikipedia definitive, but it is very useful for non-contentious topics. If you stray into things where the only thing you can find to support your concept is a post on Wikipedia, you may get into trouble.

 

Quite frankly if you do that and wait 24 hours, the page may say exactly the opposite of what it said when you posted the link, so it might be even worse for you.

 

 

Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters, :phones:
Buffy
Link to post
Share on other sites

...

No one considers Wikipedia definitive, but it is very useful for non-contentious topics. If you stray into things where the only thing you can find to support your concept is a post on Wikipedia, you may get into trouble.

...

.

The seems sensible.

 

I have not--yet--found myself in a situation where that site had the only thing I could find. I sure do hope that day never arrives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...