= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MartinB comments on Yes, a blog. - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (106)
The difference is really between using it and citing it. Its a nice first start, but not a good source to quote from.
And yet, citing from Britannica is okay - and Britannica doesn't cite its sources IIRC. And a head-to-head comparison found Wikipedia to be more accurate. (Citation needed.)
When I was in high school, citing from Britannica was not acceptable!
Wow. What was left? "It doesn't count unless it is on parchment!"?
I think the reasoning was that an encyclopedia is a good starting point, but isn't a real source, because it's brief and compressed. But really I'm not sure why, in fact. Why couldn't you cite the encyclopedia for simple, verifiable historical facts? It's not as if Britannica is going to be less accurate than a "real book" with an author. I remember some kid asking about it, the teacher saying scornfully, "Well, encyclopedias aren't a real source," and then I decided "encyclopedia = BAD" and thought no more about it.
If I recall my MLA guide correctly from years ago, you don't need to cite anything for common knowledge, "John Adams was the second president of the United States" being an example of common knowledge. If you needed to cite, you should cite primary sources like newspapers, journal articles, or biographies; not secondary sources like textbooks or encyclopedias.
Your high school was extremely atypical, was it not?
maybe.