Well, now I don't have to cite any badly-written articles, that will just be attacked by Wiki-dicks for being "anecdotal" and therefore trivial.

Because someone else has written such a book already.

(They're blogging examples.)

Sorry, that won't wash. It's a self-published book (at least I can't see any publisher's name). Thus by definition it's not a reliable source.

I was literally just about to post the same thing.

Where did you find this? I saw a link to it in the morning news.

It is at Amazons and even has three reviews.

You utter fool.......it doesn't matter if it's "reliable" or not. In the real world, the
"reliability" of a source means shit. If people buy this book, it will become "notable".
Popularity wins, "accuracy" is usually unimportant.

Millions of Bibles are sold every year. I don't see anyone effectively challenging it for
its "reliability". Plenty has been written about that before.
To no avail. Same for all the quack diets, quack medical books, UFO books, conspiracy books etc.

Please, please, please tell me I'm just clueless to some kind of irony in this statement. The distinction between publication by a reputable publishing business with "skin in the game" and self publication is all that keeps the "suicide note app" off the Kindle. The basic protection provided by an editor who knows literature or the relevant discipline/industry making a business decision favoring some writings over others is at least as important as peer review.

Haven't you heard? "Irony" is my middle name.

They spelled "Chekhov" as "Chekov".

I didn't find the free preview of the book to be laugh-out-loud funny. I wouldn't purchase the full book, that's for sure.

Agree, and thought it was the kind of thing Wikipedians might even like. I couldn't find any of the edits, which were the sort of inept thing the vandal hunters are most likely to catch. So they will use it to show that Wikipedia is always improving, and quickly.