Re: a little something for all you wikipedia-lovers

Peter T. Daniels skreiv:

On Jan 28, 1:12 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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

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.

Which I trust answers grapheus's question, and which provides a further differentiation between Britannica and wikipedia, and for which reason, totally banning citing EB in college work is unwise.

So you -- of all -- outrule Wikipedia as a source for the common wisdom of our days? Or as a source for research on the validity of Wikipedia itself?


--
Trond Engen
- made his first entry yesterday
.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast