Sure, but if James Joyce really is "one of the most significant writers of the 20th century" then we should have no problem finding a source which states that.
Remembering that we don't give credence to expert editors because they *know* details they can ramble off, but rather, because they know where *to look* to find the sources.
We, are not sources. I wouldn't support any position that claims that we, as editors, are also sources.
Will Johnson
**************Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides. (http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000016)
On Apr 7, 2008, at 2:38 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Sure, but if James Joyce really is "one of the most significant writers of the 20th century" then we should have no problem finding a source which states that.
Perhaps we can find a claim for the particular importance of Joyce. But the sociological claim of Joyce's importance to scholarship is *much* less likely to be stated. May well be stated for Joyce, sure. But not for every author about which that should be said.
Remembering that we don't give credence to expert editors because they *know* details they can ramble off, but rather, because they know where *to look* to find the sources.
We, are not sources. I wouldn't support any position that claims that we, as editors, are also sources.
Which I'm not advocating. I'm saying that we need to understand that the relationship between a summary and a source is not 1:1, and that any summary is going to introduce material that is not from sources. Such information cannot simply be cut out of the process - it needs to be carefully engaged with. Sources are vital, but we cannot pretend that an article is simply a natural and obvious extension of its sources.
-Phil
Indeed, it should be a cakewalk for an expert to source anything uncontraversial - certainly it took me ~45 seconds to search through Ostlie & Carroll for the Sun's temperature, and I'm a lowly graduate student.
Cheers WilyD
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:38 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Sure, but if James Joyce really is "one of the most significant writers of the 20th century" then we should have no problem finding a source which states that.
Remembering that we don't give credence to expert editors because they *know* details they can ramble off, but rather, because they know where *to look* to find the sources.
We, are not sources. I wouldn't support any position that claims that we, as editors, are also sources.
Will Johnson
**************Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides. (http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000016) _______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l