K.G. Schneider writes:
>> IMPORTANT NOTE: Most teachers and professionals do
not consider it
>> appropriate to use tertiary sources such as
encyclopedias as a sole
>> source for any information. Wikipedia articles
should be used for
>> background information, and as a starting point for
further
>> research.
>
> Oh, I see; it's because it's an encyclopedia; blame
the format!
Sure. It _is_ because it's an encyclopedia. Like all
encyclopedias,
it is mostly assembled by people who are not themselves
specialist
researchers in the field. Wikipedia is not a primary
source, and
neither is any other encyclopedia.
> Aren't we all entitled to the best information
possible, whether we
> are making a life decision, playing a board game,
planning a family
> move, cooking dinner, or deciding whether it's right
for our country
> to go to war?
No; you're entitled to the best information you're willing
to pay for.
... and in a similar vein ...
Richard Wiggins writes:
> Imagine if the Britannica had a disclaimer that said
"This is a
> tertiary source and we often may get things
wrong."
Britannica _is_ a tertiary source, and it _does_ get things
wrong. Is
there anyone here who would seriously cite Britannica as a
source when
writing primary literature?
_/|_
____________________________________________________________
_______
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <mike miketaylor.org.uk> http://www.miketaylor.or
g.uk
)_v__/\ "The Net has been so creative and explosive
in part because the
government didn't know enough about it to mess it
up" -- Jon Katz.
_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4libwebjunction.org
http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/
|