> > Seems to me you would not be the right editor to
> embark on this then. :) Best to leave it to someone who
> speaks Japanese, and >they should have a look what
> scholarly literature there is available, including Japanese
> scholarly literature.
>
> err by that standard the person would have to be able to
> read:
>
> English
> Japanese
> French
> German
> Dutch
> Chinese
> Italian
> Russian
>
> and depending on how much you were worried about more
> recent events
> arabic and spanish
>
> So we are back to the problem that by your standards there
> is no one
> on earth qualified to write the [[Canal]] article.
If that's what you thought I was saying, you have misunderstood me. Let the
person who can read Japanese contribute what they can from the Japanese
scholarly literature, to cover any points specific to canals in Japan, and so
forth. And failing such an editor, finding the best English-language work on
Japanese canals will just have to do. Or you'd have to ask the Japanese
WikiProject for help.
Like you say, it is a collaborative project; but everyone involved in that
project should make an effort to find the most relevant, authoritative sources.
You're doing no less when you refer to Hadfield, because, like you say, he is
the bedrock of British canal history. If there were no editor like you who had
bothered to find out that Hadfield is a sterling source to refer to on canals,
Wikipedia would be much worse off. I don't think I am really in disagreement
with you.
A.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
