From ... Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!colt.net!newsfeed.esat.net!nslave.kpnqwest.net!nloc.kpnqwest.net!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!nreader2.kpnqwest.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia References: <3213041760976232@naggum.net> <87wv1hupul.fsf@orion.bln.pmsf.de> <3213194379540444@naggum.net> <5MhD7.13$kj5.3277@burlma1-snr2> Mail-Copies-To: never From: Erik Naggum Message-ID: <3213373616124032@naggum.net> Organization: Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway Lines: 49 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 19:46:58 GMT X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@Norway.EU.net X-Trace: nreader2.kpnqwest.net 1004384818 193.71.66.49 (Mon, 29 Oct 2001 20:46:58 MET) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 20:46:58 MET Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.lisp:18770 * Barry Margolin | I think worrying about this encyclopedia entry is tilting at windmills. Then let others who do not agree with you try to change these entries. | Do you really think that people doing any serious comparisons of computer | languages are going to use that miniscule entry as their criteria? What makes you believe that those are the target audience? People who would like to know about something they previously knew little or nothing about go to encyclopedia to satisfy their _curiosity_. You are probably not that kind of person, but I am. Many a journey to learn new things have begun with various encyclopedia entries over the years. I would like an entry to be motivating those who seek to learn. This particular entry is not. Regardless of your defeatism, the fact is that some people start with absolutely no knowledge about Lisp and could use an entry that led them to want to learn more, and not be led _astray_. Some people do in fact start with their own curiosity as the only motivation. If one in a thosuand start their journey to something I consider valuable through a dictionary entry, then it is worth improving it. You do not think so, but I wonder why you find it worth your time and effort to _discourage_ those who do. What is in this for you to want to _hinder_ an improved entry? Why are you so interested in _de-motivating_ those who would simply like such an entry to be more accurate? I find your expressed and strong _negative_ interest here very puzzling, to say the least. How could it possibly be a good thing for you to cause an inaccurate entry to remain unchanged if it can be improved? | Or that changing this encyclopedia will actually make a dent in the | widespread misunderstanding about Lisp in the computer science industry? Yes. "A dent" is precisely what I would hope for. If it has wider effects over time, that would be a good thing, too, but it is hard to know these things in advance. For instance, it _may_ be sufficient to change this one entry to cause other entries to be less inaccurate, as editors and the experts they consult, also consult each other's entries. | I think this is much ado about nothing. Of course you do. You have given up and you want others to give up, too. I would appreciate if you simply gave up and stopped working so hard to make others give up, too. Giving up is not a good thing to be encouraged. /// -- Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate. -- The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers. -- Richard Hamming