On 6 February 2013 18:46, Carcharoth <carcharot...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On 2/6/13, Fred Bauder <fredb...@fairpoint.net> wrote:
>> Nevertheless something that is never mentioned in a nonfiction book or >> journal article over 250 years could be said to have dropped from the >> canon of knowledge and could then be archived. > Maybe, but I don't think you can generalise. You have to inspect each > individual case. It *is* important that contemporary coverage exists > as a check and balance to past coverage, but past coverage can provide > historical context in other articles, even if it ultimately is > insufficient to support a stand-alone article. The real problem is that Wikipedia's sourcing rules *mostly* work *most* of the time - they are not philosophically watertight, and trying to treat them as if they were leads to silliness and frustration. So I'm just expressing my frustration. And probably being silly. - d. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
