Re: How to write about things that were once notable?

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