On 2 October 2010 22:21, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I think that is a misunderstanding that operated at the time as well. This is > not about having to chew your way through all the available scholarly > literature before you are allowed to start the article "canal". > > It is about checking if there *is* any scholarly literature out there. And > accessing and using that as you grow the article.
So 30 seconds British library catalog search then forget about it. > This is even more important when you start working on an article that has > already existed for a number of years, and that other >editors have built up > to C-Class, or whatever. Before you jump in and rewrite the whole thing, you > should check the sources that are >already cited, and check what scholarly > sources are out there: authoritative sources that have been cited by many > other authors, but >still haven't made it into the article. Which means that unless you happen to live with a library that includes a bunch of naval history or are prepared to spend a non trivial amount of money you can't edit say [[HMS Argus (I49)]] (which cites Warship 1994). You appear to be missing the point that wikipedia is a collaboration. -- geni _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
