by a link, so those who wish to follow it up can do so. But is it really necessary to trace it all the way back to its origins in antiquity?
There's also information that the writer may just not feel is necessary to look up and cite formally because he is not using it as formal evidence in an argument. For example, if I say "it has been said that Napoleon Bonaparte was poisoned by his captors on St Helena", I shouldn't have to take time off to track down the reference, as long as I make clear it is something I read somewhere that I can't vouch for. However, I don't expect anyone to take my word for it, either.
Before the internet, people used to read a lot.
They knew a lot of stuff they could not readily attribute, although they were also aware that this sort of information was not reliable and could not be used as argumentary evidence.
Flame » in reply to Last week's Science Friday had a discussion on exactly this topic
Material should be referenced
The whole thread (20 posts)
- I'm at a loss, here.
- You've got to pull your head out of the echo chamber.
- Yea, yea. Sources are bad if they aren't your sources.
- Echo chamber? The Miami Herald?
- Re: Echo chamber? The Miami Herald?
- You've got to pull your head out of the echo chamber.