On 12 August 2011 17:12, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 August 2011 17:09, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, David Gerard wrote:
This is false. Print sources do not require a legal scan to be available.
If you try using an illegal scan of a print source, you'll be told that you have no reason to believe the copy accurately represents the source.
I tend to just cite the print source and have had no problems. Please give diffs illustrating examples of the problems you are describing.
I haven't seen Ken's particular case, but I've seen similar ones. Citing a print source is fine, but some (particularly querulous) people will occasionally challenge the print source because they don't believe what it says. In doing so, they'll argue that the person citing it can't be trusted, or that the transcription referred to is inaccurate, or - in this case - that there is something inherently wrong with the scanned file referred to. See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kurt_Meyer_(SS_general) which used this style of argument before moving swiftly on to denying the existence of anyone who'd ever read the book.
It's a conceptually silly argument - it basically amounts to assuming deliberate deception at some point in the chain of evidence, which isn't a reasonable assumption in 98% of cases - but if someone is insistent enough, they can probably stonewall with it until the other party throws their hands up and gives in. And, sooner or later, we all do.
I have seen it used sensibly once or twice - a couple of years back, I even went to the library to check a transcription for someone when it seemed too outlandish to be true - but usually this approach is a good marker of someone acting in bad faith. We can (and do) deplore it, but it's hard to stamp out a deliberately and tendentiously over-literal approach to verification!