Mainstream scholarly books seldom make clear which items in a bibliography are
particularly significant or considered authoritative. Everything is just lost in a long
list.
Fred
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Gray [mailto:shimgray@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 01:41 PM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A much neglected aspect of quality - Bibliographies
On 30/06/07, Gwern Branwen <gwern0(a)gmail.com> wrote:
What bothers me is the unclearness of the idea of
a
'bibliography'. I've run into this in a number of my articles
- in an article about an author, say, does a Bibliography
contain a comprehensive listing of his works, ...
Not to mention comprehensive bibliographies of a single work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Battle#Publication_history
(I twitch a little any time I see a single ISBN quoted for a book when
it isn't clearly referring to a specific edition, but I guess it's
better than nothing)
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l