[WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

[phoebe ayers]

On 12/19/06, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/19/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > All these things are sliding scales. It's easy to objectively say "all
> > the victims were women". It's just *harder* to objectively say "all
> > the papers supported notion X". Maybe it's ok. Maybe it isn't.
>
> For one thing, if a source exhaustively lists all X, it's a definitive
> claim that can be sourced.  Stating that all of them have something in
> common is simply a collation and editing function, IMO.
>
> A database search like that described is different; it's not
> definitive and not a single source that can be cited.  It's headed
> into original research to deem the results definitive and decisive;
> there is no guarantee whatsoever that the results have to be
> exhaustive and complete.
>
> -Matt


Well stated; there's also another difference -- the contents of databases
change. The printed list of serial killers will always be the same in that
particular book; the database search may yield different results next year.
As for availability, I don't know about HeinOnline, but there are different
subsets of LexisNexis and most folks other than lawyers and law students
don't have access to the really good and expensive one.

Two more notes: I don't know if there's specific protocol for legal
databases; generally one cites a DB search with the name of the database,
date of search, and your search string: "(au=brown) and (wd="serial
killer*")". As for the not-finding-anything search... notoriously hard to
prove or do definitively, yes. A very similar question was given to us in
library school as homework :)

-- phoebe