[Foundation-l] Expertise and Wikipedia redux

[Nikola Smolenski]

On Sat, 2010-10-16 at 18:23 +0100, Peter Damian wrote:
> A short piece here 
> http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/10/andronicus-of-rhodes.html You can read it, 
> but the take-home is pretty brief.
> 
> (1) Here is another of the many examples where proper encyclopedic content 
> is plagiarised entirely from 100-year old sources.

As I commented there:

I don't see  how can you call it plagiarism when at the bottom of the
article it is clearly written:

# This article incorporates text from the public domain Dictionary of
Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology by William Smith (1870).

#  This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public
domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (Eleventh
ed.). Cambridge University Press.

> (2) Suggesting the thought: if Wikipedia now is relying on century-old 
> sources, what sources will Wikipedia be relying on in 100 years time?  For 
> Wikipedia has apparently made traditional sources obselete.

Wikipedia is not entirely relying on century-old sources, however this
still remains an interesting question.