On Sat, 2010-10-16 at 18:23 +0100, Peter Damian wrote: > A short piece here > http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/10/andronicus-of-rhodes.html You can read it, > but the take-home is pretty brief. > > (1) Here is another of the many examples where proper encyclopedic content > is plagiarised entirely from 100-year old sources.
As I commented there: I don't see how can you call it plagiarism when at the bottom of the article it is clearly written: # This article incorporates text from the public domain Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology by William Smith (1870). # This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (Eleventh ed.). Cambridge University Press. > (2) Suggesting the thought: if Wikipedia now is relying on century-old > sources, what sources will Wikipedia be relying on in 100 years time? For > Wikipedia has apparently made traditional sources obselete. Wikipedia is not entirely relying on century-old sources, however this still remains an interesting question. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
