Re: Wikipedia may provide books made with different perspectives input, whilst others can't

[Replies should go only to <[email protected]>.]

Anthere wrote in part:

>Toby Bartels wrote:

>>In Wikipedia, when we write an article on part of biology,
>>then that article too is restricted to the displine of biology.

>Well. No. That is not always true. 

>Writing a textbook about corn, and only sticking to the
>plant biology would be of no interest to a farming student. He will need plant
>science and botany to know the crop, farming information to grow it, animal
>science to understand what it is needed for (hence the quality required), soil
>science to understand the crop requirement versus soil resources, climate
>science and water science to irrigate the crop wisely, chemistry and quality
>management to understand how to best deal with this crop disease and insect
>specificities whilst insuring food quality and safety, environmental issues
>related to that crop, such as benefits and drawbacks associated with a
>particular crop management, a minimum of biotech information to understand
>what a gmo is and what the different trends are on that topic, mechanics for
>the farming equipment, trade, market, economical and political background to
>best sell his product and project himself in the future.

I agree completely.  For a textbook on corn farming.
Which is not the same thing as a textbook on biology!
So I don't see any conflict between your opinion and mine.

>Both are ok, but I am here for the second point. Not the first.

So you would rather work on a textbook on corn farming
than work on a textbook on biology.  That's fine with me!


-- Toby