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
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org