Matt Brown wrote:
On 12/13/05, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
I wonder how many people hold off adding references because they're hoping for a better source. For instance, I used to not mention using Oxford Classical Dictionary, because it's technically a tertiary source, but many of its articles mention only primary sources, leaving no secondaries to cite. Nowadays I just cite it anyway - if somebody has something better later, they can replace the OCD cite.
Exactly the result I feared when people started to press not only for sources, but only sources that fit certain criteria. I argued then that even a poor source is better than none, because it traces where the information came from and allows people familiar with the subject to dig deeper.
I also believe we should cite primary, secondary or tertiary sources, whichever is available. In the case of primary sources, of course, these should only be readily available ones. Ideally, an encyclopedia is a tertiary source - a summing-up of knowledgable opinion - but I would not exclude primary or tertiary sources unless better are available.
I absolutely agree. Once you start imposing serious limitations on the acceptability of sources you set up the basis for many future arguments of the "my source is better than yours" variety. We need to encourage people to use what they have, without worrying about strict criteria.
Ec