Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Jeff Raymond 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.
Where I have difficulty is in finding that this view still rests on a
number of highly subjective notions: "reliability", "really solid",
"good, credible", "trivial". ven leaving aside "original
research" and
how we view that there is still a wide gap in how we understand these
subjective terms. If I use the academic paper as a reference point it's
considerably more than what we might find in popular publications, and
noticeably less than what is wanted by those who view each article as an
isolated whole that strives for independence from the rest of the
encyclopedia.
Ec