[WikiEN-l] The dangers of not citing Wikipedia

[WJhonson at aol.com]

In a message dated 8/11/2008 3:33:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,  
thomas.dalton at gmail.com writes:

That's a  bad idea,
generally, though. It's just better to actually find a copy of  "so and
so" and then cite that directly. Especially when you have no idea  who
the person claiming that "so and so" includes the information  is,
which is the case with Wikipedia.>>



----------------------------
I agree that a good researcher, biographer, historian, will seek to go to  
the most primary version that can.  However for example, I have access to  
hundreds of newspapers, the actual images of the actual columns from the time  they 
appeared.  Most people do not.
 
Now let's say I state "Henry Fonda still maintained relationship with his  
ex-wife Margaret Sullavan as they were seen eating lunch together months after  
the divorce"  and I cite my source as the "Fresno Examiner", 4 Apr  1934.
 
Now someone could come along to my page, think that's interesting and cut  
and paste it directly into Wikipedia, obviously citing the newspaper but  
forgetting the courtesy of citing my work as the secondary citation.  They  did not 
actually read the newspaper, they are leaching off my work to present  some 
interesting trivia to the world without even an acknowledgement.
 
I try not to do that with my own sources, where I can't actually get a copy  
of the underlying source, and I wish others would make an effort to learn  
secondary citation.  Aside from that it's sometimes rather important to  know 
that a bit of data has been selected and filtered through an intermediary,  
sometimes that knowledge alone colors the reading.
 
Will Johnson



**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget? 
Read reviews on AOL Autos.      
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )