 A new book about WP! |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
  |
| EricBarbour |
 Sun 13th November 2011, 6:54am
Post
#1
|
 blah  Group: Regulars Posts: 5,919 Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am Member No.: 5,066 WP user page - talk check - contribs  |
Well, now I don't have to cite any badly-written articles, that will just be attacked by Wiki-dicks for being "anecdotal" and therefore trivial.
Because someone else has written such a book already. (They're blogging examples.) This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Sun 13th November 2011, 6:56am |
   |
 
|
| Detective |
Mon 14th November 2011, 9:29pm
Post
#2
|
|
Senior Member Group: Contributors Posts: 321 Joined: Thu 9th Dec 2010, 11:17am Member No.: 35,179 |
Sorry, that won't wash. It's a self-published book (at least I can't see any publisher's name). Thus by definition it's not a reliable source.
|
|
|
|
| melloden |
Mon 14th November 2011, 9:35pm
Post
#3
|
 . Group: Contributors Posts: 450 Joined: Tue 30th Nov 2010, 4:43pm Member No.: 34,482 |
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 13th November 2011, 6:54am)  Well, now I don't have to cite any badly-written articles, that will just be attacked by Wiki-dicks for being "anecdotal" and therefore trivial. Because someone else has written such a book already. (They're blogging examples.) I was literally just about to post the same thing. Where did you find this? I saw a link to it in the morning news. |
|
|
|
| mbz1 |
Mon 14th November 2011, 11:50pm
Post
#4
|
 Senior Member Group: Contributors Posts: 461 Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm Member No.: 25,791 |
QUOTE(melloden @ Mon 14th November 2011, 9:35pm) Where did you find this? I saw a link to it in the morning news. It is at Amazons and even has three reviews. |
|
|
|
| EricBarbour |
Tue 15th November 2011, 2:25am
Post
#5
|
|
blah Group: Regulars Posts: 5,919 Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am Member No.: 5,066 WP user page - talk check - contribs |
QUOTE(Detective @ Mon 14th November 2011, 1:29pm) Sorry, that won't wash. It's a self-published book (at least I can't see any publisher's name). Thus by definition it's not a reliable source.  You utter fool.......it doesn't matter if it's "reliable" or not. In the real world, the "reliability" of a source means shit. If people buy this book, it will become "notable". Popularity wins, "accuracy" is usually unimportant. Millions of Bibles are sold every year. I don't see anyone effectively challenging it for its "reliability". Plenty has been written about that before. To no avail. Same for all the quack diets, quack medical books, UFO books, conspiracy books etc. This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Tue 15th November 2011, 2:26am |
|
|
|
| GlassBeadGame |
Tue 15th November 2011, 2:38am
Post
#6
|
 Dharma Bum Group: Contributors Posts: 7,919 Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West. Member No.: 981 |
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 14th November 2011, 9:25pm) QUOTE(Detective @ Mon 14th November 2011, 1:29pm) Sorry, that won't wash. It's a self-published book (at least I can't see any publisher's name). Thus by definition it's not a reliable source. You utter fool.......it doesn't matter if it's "reliable" or not. In the real world, the "reliability" of a source means shit. If people buy this book, it will become "notable". Millions of Bibles are sold every year. I don't see anyone effectively challenging it for its "reliability". Plenty has been written about that before. To no avail. Same for all the quack diets, quack medical books, UFO books, conspiracy books etc. Please, please, please tell me I'm just clueless to some kind of irony in this statement. The distinction between publication by a reputable publishing business with "skin in the game" and self publication is all that keeps the "suicide note app" off the Kindle. The basic protection provided by an editor who knows literature or the relevant discipline/industry making a business decision favoring some writings over others is at least as important as peer review. |
|
|
|
| EricBarbour |
Tue 15th November 2011, 2:49am
Post
#7
|
|
blah Group: Regulars Posts: 5,919 Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am Member No.: 5,066 WP user page - talk check - contribs |
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 14th November 2011, 6:38pm) Please, please, please tell me I'm just clueless to some kind of irony in this statement. Haven't you heard? "Irony" is my middle name.  |
|
|
|
| greyed.out.fields |
Tue 15th November 2011, 10:24am
Post
#8
|
|
Neophyte Group: Contributors Posts: 5 Joined: Thu 25th Aug 2011, 10:00am Member No.: 63,900 |
They spelled "Chekhov" as "Chekov".
|
|
|
|
| thekohser |
Tue 15th November 2011, 3:25pm
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Regulars Posts: 10,274 Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm Member No.: 911 |
I didn't find the free preview of the book to be laugh-out-loud funny. I wouldn't purchase the full book, that's for sure.
|
|
|
|
| Peter Damian |
Tue 15th November 2011, 3:45pm
Post
#10
|
 I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin! Group: Regulars Posts: 4,400 Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm Member No.: 4,212 WP user page - talk check - contribs |
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 15th November 2011, 3:25pm) I didn't find the free preview of the book to be laugh-out-loud funny. I wouldn't purchase the full book, that's for sure. Agree, and thought it was the kind of thing Wikipedians might even like. I couldn't find any of the edits, which were the sort of inept thing the vandal hunters are most likely to catch. So they will use it to show that Wikipedia is always improving, and quickly. |
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 19th 5 13, 12:24pm |