Stuff I'm doing (or did, or plan to do... in no particular order)
|Herbert George Wells - The Country of the Blind and other Stories |
|Herbert George Wells - Mankind in the Making |
|Herbert George Wells - The Outline of History Vol. 1 & Vol. 2 |
|Leo Tolstoy - Anna Karenina (transl.: Nathan Haskell Dole) |
|Sabine Baring-Gould - Yorkshire Oddities, Incidents and Strange Events |
|Melville Davisson Post - Uncle Abner: Master of Mysteries |
|Edgar Allan Poe - The works of the late Edgar Allan Poe Vol. 1 & Vol. 2 |
|Whitworth Porter - A History of the Knights of Malta, or the Order of St. John of Jerusalem |
|Georges Perrot & Charles Chipiez - A History of Art in Ancient Egypt Vol. 1 (transl.: Walter Armstrong) |
|Margaret A. Murray - The Witch-Cult in Western Europe |
|Ârya Śûra - Sacred Books of the Buddhists Vol. 1: Jâtakamâlâ (Garland of Birth-Stories) (transl.: Friedrich Max Müller) |
(A list in progress...)
- Page:Laws of Hammurabi, King of Babylonia.djvu/6
- Don't-give-a-fuckism (Wikipedia)
- Observations on Wikipedia behavior (Antandrus)
It's all about teh wikiality 
This is a bit overdone but is true enough to be said: “The Wikipedia philosophy can be summed up thusly: "Experts are scum." For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War -- and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge -- get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment. Lore Sjöberg, "The Wikipedia FAQK"
My comment: A common rebuttal to the above is that WP:V exists, i.e., editors (expert or otherwise) must support their edits with good sources, so that makes everything wonderful. What is missed by that rebuttal is that Randy in Boise, in his cluelessness about the Peloponnesian War (combined with his conviction that he actually does understand it), won't understand how to evaluate whether sources are any good, let alone how to weight them.
"Consensus" does not magically generate accuracy. With persistence, it is possible to introduce considerable bias or flat-out misinformation, especially if multiple so-inclined editors are involved. Bias in, bias out.
Hat tip: Middle_8 as of 2016/10/10
Nice (and necessary) project: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User:Zoeannl/Project_guideline/Proofreader’s_Guide