[WikiEN-l] While we're at it, NOR line-by-line

[Phil Sandifer]

On Apr 7, 2008, at 2:38 PM, WJhonson at aol.com wrote:

> Sure, but if James Joyce really is "one of the most significant  
> writers of
> the 20th century" then we should have no problem finding a source  
> which states
> that.
>

Perhaps we can find a claim for the particular importance of Joyce.  
But the sociological claim of Joyce's importance to scholarship is  
*much* less likely to be stated. May well be stated for Joyce, sure.  
But not for every author about which that should be said.

> Remembering that we don't give credence to expert editors because they
> *know* details they can ramble off, but rather, because they know  
> where *to  look*
> to find the sources.
>
> We, are not sources.  I wouldn't support any position that claims  
> that  we,
> as editors, are also sources.

Which I'm not advocating. I'm saying that we need to understand that  
the relationship between a summary and a source is not 1:1, and that  
any summary is going to introduce material that is not from sources.  
Such information cannot simply be cut out of the process - it needs to  
be carefully engaged with. Sources are vital, but we cannot pretend  
that an article is simply a natural and obvious extension of its  
sources.

-Phil