Frederick "FN" Noronha wrote:
Mark, very interesting comments. Just out of curiosity -- are you an information scientist, librarian, academic, or none of the above? :-) FN
PS: I don't mean to be poking fun. Just curious to know how different segments would see this issue. BTW, I'm a journalist, in India (Goa).
On 27/02/07, Delirium wrote:
It certainly isn't how I, or anyone else I know, uses or would recommend using Wikipedia. You resort to a paid professional *after* Wikipedia, not *before*. Wikipedia is particularly good as a first glance, giving you search terms you might not have heard of, pointeres to other related topics, and in good articles an overview of the subject. And I'd argue that unless people know what they're doing, a search of LexisNexis or ProQuest (or Google Scholar) is likely to be much worse than browsing the Wikipedia article as a first resource. A good Wikipedia article puts all these sources in context, and so is infinitely better than the raw listing of sources as a first reference. These databases are giant archives of primary sources, *not* generally reviewed, interrelated, or usefully commented upon. Honestly this part, especially with its focus on paid professionals and pay-access archives, strikes me as a bit of turf defense.
A lot too depends on how central the Wikipedia information is to your central thesis. Thus if you are writing about the 20th century literature in Portuguese India, the Wikipedia article may be an adequate one for establishing the historical background.
Mark's point is well taken. Not everyone is suited to detailed methodical research, and interpretation of raw information. The maxim that because you pay for something it must be of better quality is fallacious. Perhaps they only magnify the false sense of security.
Ec