> 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 <robertgillis@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Come on, folks, so many of you are missing the point, I'm beginning
to wonder if you're yanking our chain.
HOW I cite the article, or whether the article was factually correct
in every minor detail isn't the issue.
At issue is:
YOU tell me that Wikipedia or Brittania or Poor Richard's says the
Fall of Vicksburg was on July 2 -- I want to see that in print! So,
I go check it, and now the cited source says it was July 4. So
here's my dilemma: can I trust anything else you tell me? You not
only got the date wrong, you cited a source that doesn't sup****t
your date. So why should I believe you?
Right, wrong, or indifferent, if you cite a source which you say
says (whatever) it would be a good thing if it actually said
(whatever you said it did) when someone else goes to look because it
makes you look competent.
*THAT's* the issue. Not how accurate the current Wiki-graph is.
Cheryl
singhals <singhals@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
|
