On 12/13/05, Stan Shebs <shebs(a)apple.com> wrote:
I wonder how many people hold off adding
references because they're
hoping for a better source. For instance, I used to not mention
using Oxford Classical Dictionary, because it's technically a
tertiary source, but many of its articles mention only primary
sources, leaving no secondaries to cite. Nowadays I just cite it
anyway - if somebody has something better later, they can replace
the OCD cite.
Exactly the result I feared when people started to press not only for
sources, but only sources that fit certain criteria. I argued then
that even a poor source is better than none, because it traces where
the information came from and allows people familiar with the subject
to dig deeper.
I also believe we should cite primary, secondary or tertiary sources,
whichever is available. In the case of primary sources, of course,
these should only be readily available ones. Ideally, an encyclopedia
is a tertiary source - a summing-up of knowledgable opinion - but I
would not exclude primary or tertiary sources unless better are
available.
I absolutely agree. Once you start imposing serious limitations on the
acceptability of sources you set up the basis for many future arguments
of the "my source is better than yours" variety. We need to encourage
people to use what they have, without worrying about strict criteria.
Ec