Re: a little something for all you wikipedia-lovers

On 28 Jan 2007 08:31:06 -0800, "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<news:1170001865.970364.82760@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
in sci.lang:

On Jan 28, 10:28 am, Joachim Pense <s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[...]

So is it really acceptable to cite Britannica (rather than a research
paper or monography) in a research article? What would be a reason to
do so?

For some of the history-of-linguistics things I've done, encyclopedia
articles are excellent sources for the "common wisdom" of their age.

This is irrelevant. When you do that, you're not using it
as a general reference, but rather as a primary source, much
as one might use the Paston letters as a primary source for
15th century English social history. Its quality as a
reference work is not at issue in such applications.

[...]

Brian
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: a little something for all you wikipedia-lovers
    ... paper or monography) in a research article? ... as a general reference, but rather as a primary source, much ... reference work is not at issue in such applications. ... which reason, totally banning citing EB in college work is unwise. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: a little something for all you wikipedia-lovers
    ... paper or monography) in a research article? ... reference work is not at issue in such applications.Which I trust answers grapheus's question, ... further differentiation between Britannica and wikipedia, ... which reason, totally banning citing EB in college work is unwise. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: a little something for all you wikipedia-lovers
    ... Joachim Pense wrote: ... paper or monography) in a research article? ... What would be a reason to ...
    (sci.lang)
Loading