3 ( Codex Amiatinus), no 8 ( National Gallery of Art, Washington) and no.
More interesting is to see that three of the images were taken from library collections: no. It is only logical that scholars use Wikimedia Commons for recent photographs from libraries in Egypt, Turkey, Austria, San Francisco and Manchester. Another ten were probably also indirectly taken from Commons, but the original source was given (again: rightly so). Ten of these images (so roughly 20%) were library photographs taken from Wikimedia Commons (see below). A Fragile History, which contained 52 images.
It comes as no surprise, that Wikipedia advises the same: “Wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source as not everything in Wikipedia is accurate, comprehensive, or unbiased.” Usage of images from Commons Most universities (for example, this one) therefore advise to use the sources and literature references in Wikipedia, but not the text in Wikipedia itself. That makes understandable why universities advise students NOT to cite Wikipedia: scholars should learn to cite the original source, not a shortened and simplified version of it in Wikipedia. Wikipedia has five pillars and a content policy, which states that articles may not contain original research. But it is a start, and I wouldn’t have dedicated ten thousand hours of my life to Wikipedia if I wouldn’t have been convinced that it will prove to be a useful library – somewhere in the future. Though Wikipedia is a tremendous tool of knowledge, Wiki is only starting to summarize some of the knowledge in the world. At least, it aspires to be, and to give “free access to the sum of all human knowledge” is a clear goal. Wikipedia is the Library of the 21st century. Sum of all knowledge? But "not considered to be a reliable source" True, they forgot most Asian and African libraries (6 pages on China, 3 on Japan, 1 on Timbuktu), but these will be dealt with in a new book, I presume. Andrews in Scotland, succeed in painting a clear picture of the history of the library as such, in only 518 pages, drawn upon some outstanding examples. The authors, both researchers at the University of St. It contains 18 chapters, mostly dedicated to a particular subject like “Idle Books and Riff Raff” (from Oxford to Franeker), “Cardinal Errors” (about Richelieu) and “Reading on the Job” (with the Carnegie story). It is a scholarly book, with a 16 page index and 787 notes, but it is lightly written and very readable. A Fragile History by Andrew Pettegree and Arthur der Weduwen. One of the best books published last year is the book The Library.