SJ wrote:
On Sat, 3 Dec 2005, Michael Snow wrote:
SJ wrote:
When you
talk about "cite sources" never ever put it into
connection to people editing and adding contents - it must be seen
as something separate - many people are not able to "separate"
things themselves they will combine and make something different
out of all this.
What does this mean? How can citations be separate from adding
content?
Only the person adding a fact actually knows where it came from;
other people can do nothing but guess.
Why does it matter where it came from? Except in cases where you're
dealing with a primary source and it's essential to check the
original, the choice of sources is just as subject to editing as the
content. If I add content and
Don't misunderstand me; I mean that the original author can fairly
effortlessly add a line about his/her source; whereas the next reader
to come along will have to do significantly more work to find a
relevant source and cite it.
Of course sources need to change, early sources should be replaced by
better ones, etc.
Right, I understand that wasn't precisely what you meant, but I was
arguing against possible implications of the way you approached it. The
reason I did that (and "misunderstood" you in the process) is because
many people, unlike you, misunderstand the use of sources. I've seen too
many occasions where somebody objected to getting rid of a poor-quality
source because some past author had used it, even if the article could
be supported just as well from other and better sources.
So my comments were directed at those people generally, perhaps to
little effect since most people on this list know better. Your message
just gave me an opportunity to vent.
--Michael Snow