This is so important. When I teach primary and secondary sources to students, I tell them my favorite cautionary tale about the Pedia spot. One of my favorite and brilliant English professors used to check the spot when she was writing lecture notes. She liked to go to the bottom of whatever subject she was researching to find linked sources. During a research of background information on Sir Francis Bacon at the spot, she was horrified to read that he was known as the inventor of bacon because he had killed his mother, sliced her into thin strips, and fried her over his fire.
Obviously untrue. When she checked the site later to show to her husband, these grisly details had disappeared.
Never completely trust anything on the internet and cite it so that the website you used gets the blame (or credit) if it's wrong (or right).
I'm pretty careful about sourcing. The main reason I do it the way you describe how to do it is that it puts the accountability onto the source. In other words, if I quote Wikipedia and Wikipedia is wrong, it's on them, but my readers at least know where I got my info.
I'm not a reporter, so I rely on internet sources for 99.99% of my information. It can be tricky with my kind of posts, because they're heavily opinionated. That means that the thing I'm complaining about in a post (I complain a lot these days) has to be based on facts. If I complain about, for example, all the bees in the world being extinct because I saw it somewhere on the interwebs, my next complaint will fall on deaf ears (or, should I say, more deaf ears than usual).
So if the quote or info from a source is central to the theme of the rant, I double and triple check to see if the original info is valid.
Regarding Wikipedia specifically, I tend to find my way there after I've found information somewhere else, because Wikipedia is crowd-sourced. But it's still a very useful tool, IMO, but mostly as a confirmation source or as a provider of background info.
I have to admit Wikipedia is becoming a little more careful about making sure the information is reviewed and sourced when necessary, but I still don’t rely on them. Your idea of listing them as source is good, and yes, that takes the onus off you. Thanks Charles, for opening such a considered and thought-provoking dialog!
This is so important. When I teach primary and secondary sources to students, I tell them my favorite cautionary tale about the Pedia spot. One of my favorite and brilliant English professors used to check the spot when she was writing lecture notes. She liked to go to the bottom of whatever subject she was researching to find linked sources. During a research of background information on Sir Francis Bacon at the spot, she was horrified to read that he was known as the inventor of bacon because he had killed his mother, sliced her into thin strips, and fried her over his fire.
Obviously untrue. When she checked the site later to show to her husband, these grisly details had disappeared.
Never completely trust anything on the internet and cite it so that the website you used gets the blame (or credit) if it's wrong (or right).
Love these articles, Maryan.
Thanks. LOVE the bacon story. I laughed out loud.
The thing to do is to have people study the difference in these documentations OFFLINE first...
I can’t argue that, David. That would at least slow down the general rush to slam something up on the web without considering it’s origin!
I’m just saying: it’s how I learned to write history.
Good stuff, Maryan.
I'm pretty careful about sourcing. The main reason I do it the way you describe how to do it is that it puts the accountability onto the source. In other words, if I quote Wikipedia and Wikipedia is wrong, it's on them, but my readers at least know where I got my info.
I'm not a reporter, so I rely on internet sources for 99.99% of my information. It can be tricky with my kind of posts, because they're heavily opinionated. That means that the thing I'm complaining about in a post (I complain a lot these days) has to be based on facts. If I complain about, for example, all the bees in the world being extinct because I saw it somewhere on the interwebs, my next complaint will fall on deaf ears (or, should I say, more deaf ears than usual).
So if the quote or info from a source is central to the theme of the rant, I double and triple check to see if the original info is valid.
Regarding Wikipedia specifically, I tend to find my way there after I've found information somewhere else, because Wikipedia is crowd-sourced. But it's still a very useful tool, IMO, but mostly as a confirmation source or as a provider of background info.
I have to admit Wikipedia is becoming a little more careful about making sure the information is reviewed and sourced when necessary, but I still don’t rely on them. Your idea of listing them as source is good, and yes, that takes the onus off you. Thanks Charles, for opening such a considered and thought-provoking dialog!
Anyone else want to chime in?