I didn't say those cites would be *recent* - at least with respect to EB. :)
And I think the approach you cite below is a useful one for many of the
Wikipedia articles, but there are some that rise to the level of credible
citation. Which ones? Ah, there's the rub.

Jesse Wilkins
CDIA+, LIT, ICP, edp, ermS, ecmS
IMERGE Consulting
[log in to unmask]
(303) 574-1455 office
(303) 484-4142 fax
YIM: jessewilkins8511
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Marion Sumerianlibrarian [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 9:36 AM
To: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [RM] OT: Friday postings, ? about Wikipedia as a general source

--- Jesse Wilkins <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> the Encyclopedia
> Brittanica (EB), which many
> of you would use (and have used) as part of a presentation and/or a 
> report.

last time i cited "EB" was for a paper in the 8th grade, and that was a long
time ago. i would not permit my children/students to follow that route
today.

although EB is a nice source for pleasurable reading, for getting an
overview on any subject, and to possibly get a sense of "who's who" in any
given field, personally, i'd be embarrassed to use it -- let alone cite it
-- as a source for ANY reason in a "presentation and/or a report."

all of this is to say, for me the same would apply to wikipedia.

ms

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com 

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance