XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: le@top.put.com   
      
   In rec.arts.books.tolkien Julian Bradfield  wrote:   
   > On 2022-02-06, Louis Epstein  wrote:   
   >>> In the furtherance of their pathetic "Must Not be Invented Here Syndrome"   
   >>> (obsessed with publishing only things regurgitated from elsewhere rather   
   >>> than anything of independent value),he refuses to allow simple observations   
   >   
   > If you don't understand why Wikipedia works as it does, perhaps you   
   > should just not care about it.   
      
   It is better to stay angry and create a superior alternative.   
   (What justifications they offer are insufficient...it's not a   
   matter of not understanding,but of not forgiving).   
      
   > The prohibition of primary research is of course irritating - I'm an   
   > expert on quite a lot of (genuine technical) things, but I still can't   
   > write on them other than by citing published work.   
      
   And this is completely unjustifiable...   
   The Tolkien book and the film adaptation are both "published works"   
   and that they differ in a particular way is a matter of evident fact   
   that should not be treated as needing any further verification.   
      
   > However, it does have an obvious purpose: if something is stated on   
   > Wikipedia, you should be able to trace it to a reputable published   
   > source, not some random loony on the Internet.   
      
   Sometimes one can know better than a "reputable published source"   
   (I trust the CEO of a company with an article as to where its name   
   came from over the story his grandfather the founder told a prominent   
   newspaper they quote in the article).   
      
   Sometimes information is so widely distributed that the supposed   
   citation of a "source" is entirely an act of arbitrary bias.   
      
   If all you have is what other people have already said,   
   nobody needs what you have to say,just your bibliography.   
      
   > Those of who use Wikipidia professionally (I tell all my students that   
   > it's a very valuable resource) appreciate that it doesn't allow   
   > "primary research" - otherwise the articles on, say, NP-completeness   
   > or Goedel incompleteness would be full of stuff by crackpots claiming   
   > to have solved/refuted them.   
      
   As I said,I would like to create a fork that only I can edit   
   (though others can PROPOSE edits for my review).I would be   
   putting back a lot of unjustly deleted articles and overturning   
   a lot of biased policies.   
      
   -=-=-   
   The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,   
   at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)