“Encyclopedia of the future”

In the non-mathematical field there is wide scope for the use of [computing] techniques in things such as filing systems. It is not inconceivable that an automatic encyclopaedia service, operated through the national teleprinter or telephone system, will one day exist.

— Trevor Pearcey, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Australia, 1948. Quoted in Electronic Brains: Stories from the Dawn of the Computer Age. Hat tip to the Downlode Etext Library.

Visionary thinking, 53 years before the launch of Wikipedia.

Let’s do some visionary thinking of our own, and expand the kind and amount of knowledge available freely online, and the ways of making it available.

Do you have knowledge or tech skills? Do you want to help expand the freely available, open knowledge that will help build a thrivable world and give us a chance to get us through the climate crisis? contact us by leaving a comment below.

10 thoughts on ““Encyclopedia of the future””

  1. > Do you have knowledge or tech skills?
    Yes, former sw engineer/it architect
    >Do you want to help expand the freely available, open knowledge that will help build >a thrivable world and give us a chance to get us through the climate crisis?
    Yes, Yes Yes!
    Your text is not clear about what you want people to do though…:-)

  2. DarkNeko – I’m curious to know more about your vision for H²G².

    While I’m an enormous fan of Douglas Adams, and appreciate H²G² as one iteration of the progress towards a guide on Life, the Universe and Everything, wikis seem much more open and effective to me – which is why they’ve taken off so well.

    But having said that, the idea of an all-encompassing guide to life is one that appeals to me, even if I’m not sold on the platform and platform it’s currently using.

  3. DarkNeko – I’m curious to know more about your vision for H²G².

    While I’m an enormous fan of Douglas Adams, and appreciate H²G² as one iteration of the progress towards a guide on Life, the Universe and Everything, wikis seem much more open and effective to me – which is why they’ve taken off so well.

    But having said that, the idea of an all-encompassing guide to life is one that appeals to me, even if I’m not sold on the platform and platform it’s currently using.

  4. hmm, I think you’re mixing between the goal and the way to reach the goal.

    Wikipédia’s goal is making a tool that’s an answer to most thing. In that, the “finished” version of Wikipedia could very well be or at least ressemble the H²G².

    I didn’t say anything about how either were created (closed or open contributions)

  5. hmm, I think you’re mixing between the goal and the way to reach the goal.

    Wikipédia’s goal is making a tool that’s an answer to most thing. In that, the “finished” version of Wikipedia could very well be or at least ressemble the H²G².

    I didn’t say anything about how either were created (closed or open contributions)

  6. > hmm, I think you’re mixing between the goal and the way to reach the goal.

    Ah, but having the right tool is essential.

    In a way, H²G² is similar to Appropedia’s goals. I think of Appropedia as the “Thrivability Wiki” – all about ways to live better, in all different contexts. Wikipedia is great, but deliberately limited in scope to “verifiable” and “notable” information, and looking up “What Wikipedia is not” shows that a lot of useful knowledge (e.g. how tos, guides, projects, speculation, and personal experience) is not a part of it.

    As time goes on, the borders between the wikis may blur. The important thing is to be creating good information. And for that, the right tool is so important.

  7. > hmm, I think you’re mixing between the goal and the way to reach the goal.

    Ah, but having the right tool is essential.

    In a way, H²G² is similar to Appropedia’s goals. I think of Appropedia as the “Thrivability Wiki” – all about ways to live better, in all different contexts. Wikipedia is great, but deliberately limited in scope to “verifiable” and “notable” information, and looking up “What Wikipedia is not” shows that a lot of useful knowledge (e.g. how tos, guides, projects, speculation, and personal experience) is not a part of it.

    As time goes on, the borders between the wikis may blur. The important thing is to be creating good information. And for that, the right tool is so important.

Comments are closed.