From: "bob gillis" <robertgillis@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> 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.
Agreed. The date a source was consulted should be recorded in all
cases.
> 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.
If I felt the information was doubtful to begin with, I probably
wouldn't be quoting it in a do***ent of my own. However, your
suggestion would work for some situations, but you might not be able
to include the exhibit in a magazine or gen. society publication.
For instance, if you were limited in the length of the article.
I suppose you would provide your own name and address in the
citation so readers could contact you to see the copy of the page
you were citing.
Lisa
lle****e@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
