On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 15:59:41 -0500, Jeff Raymond
<jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
Not to mention a good academic paper has less stringent
"reliable"
standards than a Wikipedia entry.
No, I don't think it does - or if it does it's not relevant. We will
allow sources of varying degrees of reliability as long as overall
there are one or two really solid sources for the core premise of the
article (because, unlike academic papers, we don't allow original
research). But as long as the subject itself is fundamentally
supported by good, credible sources, it's not necessary to cite
Britannica for every trivial fact.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG