Stan Shebs wrote:
Steve wrote:
There's no reason to pit pedia and library against one another, and simply because the possibility exists that you can find said newspaper subscription in a library doesn't create a reason against duplicating that information in pedia. There are interested parties outside Londoners and Bostonians.
I think you mistake my meaning - I was saying that books and newspapers are an excellent, if unfashionable :-) , source of information worth adding to WP. Doesn't everybody else type into WP with book propped open in lap, or newspaper spread on floor?
I wish this were true ...... by (insert your deity here) I wish. This was true of myself when I was still writing articles. I even went out and bought more books on the subjects I was writing about to compare the facts. But then you all of a sudden have to defend yourself against some kiddie who only reads websites and found this one site on the net who refutes your claims and because he cannot read books it is impossible to convince him, even though you can quote 10 books as a source and he only one derelict website the other kiddies will side with him because it is on the web so it must be the truth.
This is one of the reasons why I lost faith in community processes. The masses can so many times be convinced of a wrong thing it is unbelievable. Just because the masses say something or believe something it isn't always the truth you see. On wikipedia what the masses think is the truth is the truth.
Waerth