On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 16:32:03 -0500, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
I'm not going to argue we should follow their lead, but this isn't universally the case. Britannica, to pick only the most famous encyclopedia, is well known for hiring famous people to write original research for their articles. They've toned that down a bit since the heydey of their 1911 edition, but it's still very much present. I would say that the idea that an encyclopedia should be a tertiary source based strictly on a neutral survey of the existing secondary literature is a fairly recent shift, and most encyclopedias don't fully implement it. The previous conception of an encyclopedia was that it be a compendium of *true* things, even if the truths flatly contradict the existing secondary literature (sometimes Britannica will explicitly say things like, "most commentators say [x], but this is false"). The justification for the truth was not sourcing to existing literature, but the combined prestige of the article's author and Britannica itself.
We could not do that because we don't do original research, but we certainly do challenge the orthodox view in a number of areas, where that can be supported from the best and most current sources - in essence we see the new, emerging consensus before the weight of old literature is consigned to the dustbin of history.
However...
These authors were, even if not explicitly, drawing on a large pool of published sources. I have friends who are academics; they can write from their own knowledge, but if pressed could cite every word to research by them or others. It's just that they don't need to because of their reputation, it's a given that what they say form knowledge *could* be referenced. If they venture an opinion it is stated as opinion. We don't typically see opinions as opinion in encyclopaedias.
I only knew one person who wrote an article for Britannica, though, and he's sadly deceased so I can't ask him about it.
Guy (JzG)