Sarah wrote
The problem is that material we use as sources must be available to the general public, and it's not clear that we can expect the public to have access to a legal database.
This is rather objectionable, as a type of argument. 'Available' to the 'general public' contains two very negotiable ideas. Few academic sources (in proportion to the total) are easily available to many (in proportion to the 6 billion total) of the world's inhabitants. Making a fuss about this is a sure route to a worse encyclopedia.
I'd much prefer people (a) to take on board the general principle that acceptable sources are tied to the topic and level of coverage, and (b) to cross some of these bridges as and when they come to them, when there is some real reason to query material.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
On 19/12/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Sarah wrote
The problem is that material we use as sources must be available to the general public, and it's not clear that we can expect the public to have access to a legal database.
This is rather objectionable, as a type of argument. 'Available' to the 'general public' contains two very negotiable ideas. Few academic sources (in proportion to the total) are easily available to many (in proportion to the 6 billion total) of the world's inhabitants. Making a fuss about this is a sure route to a worse encyclopedia. I'd much prefer people (a) to take on board the general principle that acceptable sources are tied to the topic and level of coverage, and (b) to cross some of these bridges as and when they come to them, when there is some real reason to query material.
Indeed. Just because there is a grey area does NOT mean there is somehow an overriding need to resolve it into black and white at all cost to good sense.
- d.
On 12/19/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Sarah wrote
The problem is that material we use as sources must be available to the general public, and it's not clear that we can expect the public to have access to a legal database.
This is rather objectionable, as a type of argument. 'Available' to the 'general public' contains two very negotiable ideas. Few academic sources (in proportion to the total) are easily available to many (in proportion to the 6 billion total) of the world's inhabitants. Making a fuss about this is a sure route to a worse encyclopedia.
Any public library can order material that's in a regular academic library. Similarly, they can order any material that's in a legal database. But they can't "order" the database itself, and it's the database as a whole that Zero wanted to call his "source," or rather his own interpretation of its contents. That's not reasonably checkable by Wikipedia readers, which is why we don't allow OR.
Sarah
On 12/19/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Any public library can order material that's in a regular academic library. Similarly, they can order any material that's in a legal database.
While this may be true in the Western world, elsewhere it is unlikely to be. I agree with your point and position with regard to what are valid sources, but it's worthwhile to remember that many, many people in the world will not be able to access these kinds of documents.
Sarah wrote:
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Sarah wrote
The problem is that material we use as sources must be available to the general public, and it's not clear that we can expect the public to have access to a legal database.
This is rather objectionable, as a type of argument. 'Available' to the 'general public' contains two very negotiable ideas. Few academic sources (in proportion to the total) are easily available to many (in proportion to the 6 billion total) of the world's inhabitants. Making a fuss about this is a sure route to a worse encyclopedia.
Any public library can order material that's in a regular academic library. Similarly, they can order any material that's in a legal database. But they can't "order" the database itself, and it's the database as a whole that Zero wanted to call his "source," or rather his own interpretation of its contents. That's not reasonably checkable by Wikipedia readers, which is why we don't allow OR.
The database or library is an intermediate to the sources. If 20 items in the database are said to support a point it is still the 20 items that provide the verification, and not the database itself.
Ec