[Table of Contents]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ARSCLIST] Aren't recordings original sources?

At 11:22 PM 2008-10-15, Steven C. Barr wrote:
--Thus, it seems, Wikipedia doesn't want anything which can be demonstrably
PROVEN to be accurate...which might explain its less-than-impressive
repuation for truth and accuracy...?!


Did you study the link

There you will find what I wrote about in a previous post. They are TRYING to set rules for good reasons. Whether it always works or not is the discussion, but the basis of using only secondary sources that have already been vetted as a way to keep un-vetted original thinking out of their general reference work.

If nothing else, I'm finding Wikipedia a good place to find better sources--especially as more and more articles grow footnote references as the founders hoped.

Their approach is increasing the likelihood that the references used to craft articles have been peer reviewed. Their point is similar to Tom's about triangulation, just quoting original data without interpretation can get really confusing and can lead to misleading conclusions. Their assumption is if the secondary source makes the interpretation and it has been published then it is likely to be somewhat mainstream.



Richard L. Hess email: richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Aurora, Ontario, Canada (905) 713 6733 1-877-TAPE-FIX
Detailed contact information: http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.

[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents]