On 09/21/10 12:10 AM, Peter Damian wrote:
Various grammatical/stylistic errors, laundry list, discontinuity of tense, 1066 style, etc. I brought it up because Johnson was insisting that someone without formal training in the humanities could write an article just as well as someone with formal training.
Of course his statement is correct. Grammar and style are matters of form, not content.
The risk is that the amateur will fall into common errors and traps, and will lack overall perspective. The risk for the expert is that he stops questioning the assumptions that underpin his opinions.
I agree that the demand for quotes is often excessive. Editors have too often felt the need to defend the accuracy of Wikipedia, so much so that they themselves are insecure about the whole project. They end up striving for an impossible perfection.— a common ailment of geeks and gifted children.
Yes, every subject area has its canon of orthodox texts to which the reader can be directed if he wants further information. Concepts that are consistently treated across a number of such texts should not need detailed identification. Listing several such texts in a bibliography allows the reader to choose the reference work that is most available to him.
Precise references are more important when a claim deviates from or adds to the standard text.
The problem of access to old obscure works and journals remains. The challenge then is to make the obscure material more available to keep people from falling into recentism.
Ec