Chiming in to clarfy something. Just because an author is unknown doesn't mean he and his books can't have articles. I suspect what Lee is protesting is treating said author as an authority and his ideas as generally accepted. For example, we have an article about the Reciprocal System of Theory, but we don't let the RST view on everything propigate throughout Wikipedia. Since such theories are not part of the generally accepted body of human knowledge, it is outside of Wikipedia's scope to include what they have to say in articles about quantum theory, the nature of God and the cats. Likewise, Wikipedia could have an article about Mr. C's book, but we won't allow him to tag his views onto articles like predestination and sociology. --STG
What's more, Mr. C. was writing about himself in the third person as though it wasn't him writing about himself. It appeared at best ingenuous and at worst self-promoting. If we were to have an article on early medieval literacy (which we may get) I could quote myself; I wouldn't, because it would be in bad taste AND I am not the world's best-known expert in that tiny, tiny subject. I can imagine including something I had written for 'further reading'. --MichaelTinkler
|
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)