Gah. Please, no. (I am a Wikipedian, and I can see that it is going to take YEARS to clean out all the ideological and commercial point-of-view-pushing crap in Wikipedia today.[1] I try to do what clean-up I can, but I am just one guy doing Wikipedia editing in my recreational time.) Most of the comments I see about Wikipedia here on Hacker News from people who have actually edited Wikipedia relate various complaints about its editorial policies.
The practical problem for people trying to rebuild civilization from Wikipedia would be finding the structure of its internal organization to get to the most needed information rapidly. (Wikipedia is not organized around building civilization--not in its editing culture, and not in any other respect.) And here on Hacker News where we often see our fellow participants desiring a tl;dr summary of a blog post, why not go for conciseness and use a reference tool much shorter than Wikipedia to rebuild civilization? That's what the book under review in the submission here is all about: a short book focused on rebuilding civilization with the most essential information in an organized format. Have you actually looked up how to rebuild civilization on Wikipedia? What would be the first article to read?
I do like the idea of the book under review in the submission here, as the author is thinking deeply about the issue of preserving the essential knowledge to rebuild civilization, and he is curating his book with that purpose in mind. The review here looks favorable, and I think I should read the book for enjoyment--I don't actually expect to need to rebuild civilization. I do expect to need to improve Wikipedia for years. Have you joined in on that project recently?
The obvious solution here is a reboot civilization wiki. There could even be fun discussions about what to put first, the assumed technological level of the target audience, etc. I think many people would find this extremely engaging... if there was an initial thing in place, with some aspects right, but, more importantly, some aspects wrong, to criticize...
> The practical problem for people trying to rebuild civilization from Wikipedia would be finding the structure of its internal organization to get to the most needed information rapidly.
Does not matter much. Civilization is not rebuilt in a day. Even if it took a few generations for them to understand the internal organization, they'd still be ahead.
That said, a "book" with that purpose would be much better, indeed.
We would carve Wikipedia's most important articles in stone.
Wikipedia has a set of 1000 "vital articles" that would be a major asset in rebuilding civilization.[1] Of course, the internal details of the encyclopedia's organization, its Talk pages, esoteric editorial conflicts, Pokemon pages, etc. are irrelevant and would be omitted for a version of the encyclopedia put onto truly durable, readable storage media.
A few years ago, while talking with a Wikipedian about the Long Now Foundation,[2] he said something that has stuck with me:
"Who says it's not in the Wikimedia Foundation's mandate to commission certain articles to be etched in stone?"
I would love to see that goal advertized in one of the WMF's annual fundraising banners. It would be so much more awesome than investing in improved default typography (not that the exquisite new typography [3] isn't nice).
Naturally, there would need to be several language versions and many copies of the stone-etched Wikipedia articles. A more durable storage medium than stone would also be a good idea. And having the articles assumes people in the post-apocalyptic world could read an existing major language to a reasonable degree. Having a gradated table of contents, such that more fundamental and simple concepts came before sophisticated ones (e.g. 'sanitation' before 'vaccine', 'arithmetic' before 'calculus') would also obviously be helpful.
Most of the vital articles that would help in rebuilding civilization [1] are in bad condition. Maybe this discussion will inspire someone to push one of those articles to a better state.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vital_articles. The vital articles are divided into 11 categories. Of these, the following 300 or so articles from 6 of those categories would probably be the most helpful in rebuilding civilization:
- Everyday life: clothing, cooking, job, writing, and various major languages.
- Geography: city, Beijing, Cairo, Delhi, Jakarta, London, Mexico City, Moscow, New York City, Rome, Sao Paulo, Singapore, country, Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Europe, Oceania, North America, South America, Arctic, Middle East, sea, Atlantic Ocean, Indian Ocean, Pacific Ocean, lake, river, land, desert, forest, glacier, mountain, Alps, Andes, Himalayas, Rocky Mountains
- Health and medicine: common cold, influenza, pneumonia, burn, tuberculosis, ageing, antibiotic, vaccine, sanitation
- Science: scientific method, nature, astronomy, asteroid, comet, orbit, Solar System, Sun, Earth, Moon, Universe, biology, life, death, extinction, anatomy, brain, blood, heart, eye, immune system, liver, lung, muscle, skin, skeleton, reproduction, male, female, pregnancy, sex, botany, cell, ecology, evolution, genetics, heredity, organism and the 21 articles within (e.g. bird, insect, animal, human, dog, horse, plant, seed), virus, chemistry, alloy, bronze, steel, atom, chemical bond, salt, water, chemical element, carbon, iron, oxygen, silicon, chemical reaction, metal, mineral, molecule, periodic table, history of the Earth, geology, earthquake, rock, volcano, climate, cloud, flood, global warming, rain, season, weather, wind, map, soil, physics, electron, proton, photon, classical mechanics, energy, force, gravitation, heat, temperature, light, magnet, mass, matter, measurement, sound, thermodynamics, time, day, year
How can present geography help as a vital category after a large earth reforging asteroid impact or any other heavy geological disaster? Wouldn't the tectonic plates be shattered and reconfigured?
The present geography will only serve as a history or even mythology.
Geography is the science of the mechanics that drive our world. Learning to understand those, however different they may be after a disaster will become vital if you plan to rehabitate the whole world.
Gah. Please, no. (I am a Wikipedian, and I can see that it is going to take YEARS to clean out all the ideological and commercial point-of-view-pushing crap in Wikipedia today.[1] I try to do what clean-up I can, but I am just one guy doing Wikipedia editing in my recreational time.) Most of the comments I see about Wikipedia here on Hacker News from people who have actually edited Wikipedia relate various complaints about its editorial policies.
The practical problem for people trying to rebuild civilization from Wikipedia would be finding the structure of its internal organization to get to the most needed information rapidly. (Wikipedia is not organized around building civilization--not in its editing culture, and not in any other respect.) And here on Hacker News where we often see our fellow participants desiring a tl;dr summary of a blog post, why not go for conciseness and use a reference tool much shorter than Wikipedia to rebuild civilization? That's what the book under review in the submission here is all about: a short book focused on rebuilding civilization with the most essential information in an organized format. Have you actually looked up how to rebuild civilization on Wikipedia? What would be the first article to read?
I do like the idea of the book under review in the submission here, as the author is thinking deeply about the issue of preserving the essential knowledge to rebuild civilization, and he is curating his book with that purpose in mind. The review here looks favorable, and I think I should read the book for enjoyment--I don't actually expect to need to rebuild civilization. I do expect to need to improve Wikipedia for years. Have you joined in on that project recently?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WeijiBaikeBianji#Pre...