/lit/ - Literature

i don't know how to edit wikipedia but watching words written on paper is easy for my brain

>>15523302
If people get different things out of the same book, the wikipedia page would quickly become a massive entry of opinion after opinion, offering so much noise that people who read the book are better off not editing the page at all.

noooo, you can't just save time by reading summaries , you have to suffer like I did

>>15523327
You write the information conveyed in the book in the Wiki article. You don’t write your subjective opinions or impressions.
Let’s do a case study. We’ve all read Euthyphro right? Well what does a person who reads just this page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro)) miss out on? I would argue that, in fact, this Wiki page is more informative than the book itself, despite taking much less time to read.

people who actually read books not only retain what they've read better, but are able to make connections better and more easily when reading future texts.

check mate, mr i just read the summaries because i cant be arsed to read it myself

>>15523302

P. People that actually read will be willing to edit wiki articles for retards

Premise is false

I wouldn't mind doing that for you, but it would be at least as long as the book itself.

>>15523302

>implying reading non-fiction books for information is the only reason to read non-fiction books

>>15523302
My books aren't edited and censored by a committee of leftist kikes. Wikipedia is.

>>15523511
>>15523517
>>15523519
>>15523508
>>15523479
Hello, new visitors to my thread. I am basedanon. We have a case study going (>>15523451) here. Explain what benefit there would be to reading the book when you can just read that.

>>15523519
>My books aren't edited and censored by a committee of leftist kikes.
All contemporary books are, both fiction and nonfiction.
Higher education is filled with Jews.

It depends on how you read it. If you study a text seriously instead of just skimming it, then you will gain more than just checking the Wikipedia page.

>>15523557
>Reading as a rule contemporary books
That's where you fucked up, anon.

>>15523451
>>15523548
The thing is with Plato his conclusions are not that important to me (most of the time he's plainly wrong) but it's his thought process, his way of thinking that matters the most. You won't learn/internalize retoric simply by reading wiki articles of the dialogs.

I think I just btfo OP.

>>15523302
The fatal flaw of your argument is as such:
As a powerful and sexy Chad who reads large tomes instead of skimming short articles while sipping his lactose-free drinks, I disdain those who use wikia-types resources and see it below my stature to do prole work and edit anything for their convenience. After all, my schedule is already packed with heavy manuscripts to read and sexy instagram models to impregnate

>>15524130
You btfo OP for philosophical books. But what about those non-fiction books everyone seems to be reading? The Malcolm Gladwell types-- those can be summarized by wiki quite well, I think, given how they all structure their arguments in precisely the same way.

>>15523451
The act of extracting information from a book that is not logic or mathematics (and even than at some points) is necessarily interpretation. There is no objective information apart from isolated propositions which would not form a book.

>>15523302
Reading on wikipedia you only get part of the content. Then you make stupid mistakes extrapolating that the author have said this or that, or must think this or that, when in fact you wouldn't speak shit if you had read the book.
Example on Marx: many tradcucks think that Marx was in favor of immigration. It is not written on wikipedia what's his position on this particular subject. However, if you read Das Kapital Vol.1, you will know exactly what he thinks of immigration, and what is the relation between Capitalism and immigration.

>>15523302
I fucking hate your kind so much kill yourself