Wikipedia is an online community effort to compile a store house of information. The Wikipedia had tried to acquire the batch of an intellectual activity by calling itself as an encylopedia. The people from the intellectual world, especially the researchers from the Universities and the Research organisation have raised doubts about the creditibility of the contents of the online arranging of set of information and do not call it a part of knowledge. I may be wrong in my assessment but there had been objections against the actual nature of the Wikipedia.
Anyhow, I am here on Sideline talk about Wikipedia. A Sideline Talk is my own idea which I cover under a heading Sideline Comments and have made it as one of the category.
Can Wikipedia be Entertaining? Now if you are not in habbit of reading, then answer is no.
Well, if you are interesting in gathering information, then wikipedia has by now risen to a level that even its opponents sneak in to steal the contents. But can it be entertaining?
What is Entertaining? Well I am not going to take up the dictionary meaning for it and quote Oxford or Webster. For me, the thing is entertaining which arrest your attention and keep you riveted for some time. You find that the state of your mind was calm during that phase and you find yourself in a different phase of mind. That is entertaining. Look at an attractive damsel or for that a flower. Take tea or whisky. Just go on a long walk alone. All such things are entertaining for one person or other. It is different from relaxing.
I am interested in learning about the people who make the films. I am interested in watching movies but not meeting the actors. When I find that a 30plus man or woman doing acting, I find it highly deplorable act. For me, it is a director and writer, behind those people who are performing , actually doing the work. I am always interested in learning about them. But, you may not find good articles on them in print media. The print media writes about the actors who appear on the screen. Secondly, the people behind such magazines and write ups are not all that good in disecting the work of art. They may have good command over the language but there is a streak of banality and depravity in overall mind matrix. They are good at spreading rumours or indulging in gossips. The Rakhi Swant types would have never got the attention of the audience had such banal reporters not been there. Now here comes Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a write up on Rakhi Swant on one hand, and then there are write up on Dadasaheb Phalke, Guru Dutt, Satyajit Ray, Bhagwan Dada, Dev Anand, Raj Kapoor and all such stalwards who will definitely be remembered in the field of cultural development of humanity in the later part of the twenty first century. The write ups on them are developing gradually. One can find a brief and authenticated biography from their early life to the end of their existence. The main body of the article consists good level of content on their creative activity.
One thing I must emphasize here. The people from the western world talking about their world have done a better job about the topics related to their geographical area. In case of America, even the details about a small village are such that one is amazed to learn and see the clarity of the activity which they perform. There are details about the number of families living there. There are details about the racial structure of the people of the village. ( It is facinating to learn that how racial profiling is being done for public administration in America). Similarly, in case of people from Cinema and Theatre world, the creative activity of the leading stalwards has been given in detail. In case of Indian Cinema personality, there is an appreciable attempt but the gap is quite glaring as far as the quality of the contents is concerned. It is a community activity therefore, here question is not that how the Wikipedia trust is managing it. It is the act of the individual contributor from different geographical regions which matters. The Western contributors talk so passionately about their artists. The Asians and especially Indians are also contributing a lot to the work. But, as far the final output, and quality of the output are concerned, the difference is quite qualified and clear.
Finally, if you find that reading about the Cinema world is entertaining and you are Bollywood buff, then Wikipedia can be highly entertaining.
To be concluded
