Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 7th Apr 2012 17:52 UTC
Permalink for comment 513215
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-08-24
If I open a Wikipedia article, there's very strong possibility that this article cites one of the major textbooks on subject printed by a major publisher.
There's also a possibility that this article borrows the key ideas and sometimes even an artistic spirit from the original book.
And this is not a bad thing, because sometimes there's no another good way to describe things. Also, collecting the best ideas from the best books in one place is even better.
But trying to replace the original books with the books based on articles based on ideas borrowed from the original books is a really strange thing to do.
I think that the money spent to such work instead should be directed to the founding of the new publishing house which provides both printed books and CC-licensed eBooks on the same subject. No-one will disregard good printed books, even if he has their free electronic copies.