On 12/11/06, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Thomas Dalton wrote:
The source being used in the article is not the writing on the wall. The source is the few Wikipedians that have seen the writing. While the writing is probably reliable, the few Wikipedians are not.
By this reasoning, a source isn't a book, it's the few Wikipedians who have read the book.
How exactly is the writing on the wall different from a book? (Sure, not every Wikipedian can go read the writing, but not every Wikipedian has access to a particular book either.)
A wall carving is more likely to last longer.