Phil Sandifer wrote:
Nonsense. I could write that many words about using
the New York
Times as a source. You seem to be laboring under the misconception
that there is some well of magically reliable sources that can be
cited without critical thought.
The New York times is a primary source, an encyclopaedia is a
tertiary source. Tertiary sources should be much more reliable than
primary. The way you approach Wikipedia is more as if it was a primary
source.
You went from claiming that Wikipedia was reliable to saying that
everything is unreliable. So, the issue we talk about is the degree of
unreliability, and my contention is that Wikipedia for a tertiary source
is to unreliable to be used as a source for research. Wikipedia
unfortunately is often a primary source, with articles that are not more
than a first year essay on a topic.
Kim
--
http://www.kimvdlinde.com