On 9/20/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/20/06, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org>
wrote:
I guess as a reader I don't see the benefit
in *not* covering
everything. I agree there is a slant towards more coverage of recent
news events, but that's simply because they're easier to cover. The
solution, IMO, is not to cover recent events less, but to cover older
events more. I want to know the equivalent of this stuff for other time
periods! Were there short-lived but at the time massively-covered
events in the 1890s, equivalent to today's frenzies over child
kidnappings? What about the thousands of political scandals, major and
minor, that have at various times shortened governments' tenures, forced
cabinet reshuffles, etc., etc.? It's all good info we're missing!
Problem is that a lot of the data that would be useful in answering
your question is stored on microfilm and there isn't really a quick
way to scan that.
Actually ProQuest has massive microfilm newspaper databases which are
fulltext searchable that would fit the bill (the entire contents of
the NY Times, Wash Post, LA Times, Chicago Trib, etc. which go back to
the 1840s in some cases) as well as the American Periodicals Series
which goes back to 1740. It's out there, though it helps to have an
institutional account to get access to it.
FF
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l