On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:33 PM, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6 February 2013 18:46, Carcharoth <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 2/6/13, Fred Bauder <[email protected]> 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. >
It is actually worse than that. Wikipedias rules taken as a whole used to be about enabling editors to work, even in areas of dispute. I seriously doubt that is a tenable defense of the rules as enforced these days. -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
