 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Comment edit
This page is complete garbage, cite these "facts"!
I tried but failed to verify the "42% of college grads never read a book again" number. The currently cited URL for this claim itself cites http://www.bookpublishing.com/ which does not repeat the claim. I tried to contact the Jenkins via a web form, but I have not received a response. Rrenaud (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- This has gone without citation for > 3 months. I think it's time to cite or delete. Rrenaud (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- There is no need to "throw out the baby with the bath water". If some of the information needs to be deleted, the remainder can still be retained. I started this article, and I linked from other articles to it so that other editors could find it and expand it. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Can you find a real citation? I think this is just spreading misinformation and rewarding the bookpublishing.com site with traffic for doing so. 72.14.228.89 (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Everything in the section "General Reading Habits of US" (except for minor changes) was added by User:Troped. I could remove that entire section, but I am reluctant to remove another editor's contribution, because I do not know whether there actually is support for that section. It seems to me that that editor should be asked to provide appropriate citations. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Can you find a real citation? I think this is just spreading misinformation and rewarding the bookpublishing.com site with traffic for doing so. 72.14.228.89 (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- There is no need to "throw out the baby with the bath water". If some of the information needs to be deleted, the remainder can still be retained. I started this article, and I linked from other articles to it so that other editors could find it and expand it. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Fixup edit
Removed some stats not related to the article. books not making their advance back is not evidence of aliteracy, but evidence of poor publisher business strategy. fixed link, took out a little of the quoted article. hope i didnt step on toes. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- added some more content. this really really really deserves to be a great article, perhaps the most important article on WP (ok, thats mania talking), considering that if aliteracy were to persist, this very encyclopedia would become irrelevant. i wonder if there is any evidence that WP has reversed aliteracy among any segments of population. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)