Lisa Le****e wrote:
> The only difference is trying to cite a wikipedia article as a source
> of information only to find that the article can't be found at a
> later date, or is different at a later date than at the time you
> cited it.
One of the items in a citation for web sites per Evidence by ESM is
the date that you got the info from the site.
But recording the date is necessary for many sites, not just
Wikipedia.
If you feel the information is doubtful and may be revised, then
make a copy of the page and perhaps attach it as an exhibit to the
citation it belongs to.
> For instance, on January 1, 2007 you go to wikipedia and find a piece
> of information. You incor****ate that information in some do***ent,
> and provide proper citations. On July 1, 2007 someone reads your
> do***ent and goes looking for the data you cited, but lo & behold it
> is not there, because the wikipedia article has been revised or
> dropped. From your example above, you would have cited the exact
> volume of the encyclopedia, or the yearbook, or wherever it appeared,
> and a person would be able to find it.
>
> Now, I understand from some earlier messages that the revised
> information may be at the wikipedia site, but that still makes the
> citations in your do***ent incorrect; or at least it sends the reader
> of your do***ent on a hunt to find the previous information which
> you cited (correctly on Jan 1, but no longer correct on July 1)
Usually a Wikipedia article is revised because the article was in
error.
bob gillis
bob gillis <robertgillis@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
|
