[WikiEN-l] A much neglected aspect of quality - Bibliographies

[Fred Bauder]

Mainstream scholarly books seldom make clear which items in a bibliography are particularly significant or considered authoritative. Everything is just lost in a long list. 

Fred

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Andrew Gray [mailto:shimgray at gmail.com]
>Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 01:41 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A much neglected aspect of quality - Bibliographies
>
>On 30/06/07, Gwern Branwen <gwern0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What bothers me is the unclearness of the idea of a
>> 'bibliography'. I've run into this in a number of my articles
>> - in an article about an author, say, does a Bibliography
>> contain a comprehensive listing of his works, ...
>
>Not to mention comprehensive bibliographies of a single work:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Battle#Publication_history
>
>(I twitch a little any time I see a single ISBN quoted for a book when
>it isn't clearly referring to a specific edition, but I guess it's
>better than nothing)
>
>-- 
>- Andrew Gray
> andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>