On 6 February 2013 18:46, Carcharoth
<carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
On 2/6/13, Fred Bauder
<fredbaud(a)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.
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]]