In a message dated 8/11/2008 3:33:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dalton(a)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=aolaut00050000000… )