Fred Bauder wrote:
Fred Bauder
wrote:
Indeed, must have worked very well, since as of 2009 [[horse]] has 211
references, an advance on 0 when that was written.
I encountered a group of college students editing a somewhat neglected
article I had started, encouraged by a professor who had set groups the
task of improving historical pages. The article was better than before,
but there were some basic issues with what they did that required a
little more than the addition of "house style" by me.
Charles
No surprise there; you're an experienced Wikipedia editor, and with lots
of additional material to work with, can do much better than a bunch of
newbies, however scholarly.
No, I meant something a bit different. The article you posted seemed to
take the epistemology as the basic "lesson": if you tell me we "know"
that, what do you mean by "know"? It's a reasonable assumption that
being analytical about how something in an encyclopedia article can be
described as "known" would prove educational, say in the early teenage
years. The article was on the first poetry anthology published in
English, and the question I would have is more about general relevance
of content. Just one statement: the first edition had many poems
containing religious commentary that were taken out in later editions.
OK, fine, if you know the publication date was 1557, the year before
Mary Tudor died, you are going to ask more and different questions, not
just "how do we know that?" which can probably be established by putting
two books side by side. (This is about [[Tottel's Miscellany]], by the way.)
Charles