On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 10:52:07PM +0100, Lars Aronsson wrote:
<stuff about copyrights acknowledged>
In any case, when discussing the 1911 EB when it first became available on the net, it quickly became clear that the material from it is totally unsuited for cut-and-paste into Wikipedia anyway. Obviously much of it is totally out-of-date (read the article on "Calculating machines" for amusing speculation on the possibility of a completed Analytical Engine), the style is archaic, and even the stuff on historical figures has been invalidated by later research.
Use it for source material (with a good deal of care), but I would strongly argue *not* to cut-and-paste it in.
--- Robert Graham Merkel rgmerk@mira.net wrote:
In any case, when discussing the 1911 EB when it first became available on the net, it quickly became clear that the material from it is totally unsuited for cut-and-paste into Wikipedia anyway. Obviously much of it is totally out-of-date (read the article on "Calculating machines" for amusing speculation on the possibility of a completed Analytical Engine), the style is archaic, and even the stuff on historical figures has been invalidated by later research.
Use it for source material (with a good deal of care), but I would strongly argue *not* to cut-and-paste it in.
I very much agree with this. I have seen several dozen-paragraph articles that were imported from EB and then nobody dared to touch them anymore (except for wikification). The text is well-written in an authorative style, and people shy away from modifying it, and don't feel the need to check the facts. Even though much of it is outdated or even wrong. I believe the natural evolution of a Wikipedia article is actually held up by a large scale EB cut-and-past job.
Axel
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org