[Wikipedia-l] Easton's Bible Dictionary

[Daniel Mayer]

On Wednesday 07 August 2002 10:09 am, LDC wrote:
> I think it is important that all articles in Wikipedia be
> individually reviewed by a human editor.  "Data dumping" is not
> building an encyclopedia--quality is important, and out-of-date
> material is not quality.

I strongly agree. A human should read, fix and add to these resources before 
porting them to Wikipedia. We should always aim to create something unique 
here. 

What really is the point of directly porting outdated, pedantic, OCR error 
filled material (such as from the 1911 text) into Wikipedia? The material is 
already public domain, how is having it mirrored on a GNU FDLd content site 
going to serve any greater good (that is; since it has not been changed the 
original copyright, or lack thereof, applies)? 

This stuff is nearly useless for the science articles and is oftentimes 
problematic to use even in the history and mythology articles without 
extensive tweaking. 

With that said, it probably wouldn't hurt too much to simply take Pierre's 
advice and submit one entry every 10 or 20 minutes with a "from an old 
dictionary" flag in the edit summary field and at the bottom of the article. 
This will give us humans plenty of time to fix the article if need be. 

True it would probably take many months to finish but I think the result will 
be far better. 

--mav