History is not like journalism. The evidence can be complicated and imprecise; History is not a series of facts and dates and numbers. It is interpretive. BUT, you cannot interpret without the facts. The problem with Wikipedia is that it does not use experts of any kind; it does not have fact checkers; it does not "vet" its work., I have edited a number of large encyclopedias. Each entry was written by someone who was either an expert or someone known to be very smart and capable. Every entry was signed so an individual was responsible for the text; every entry was read by two (or more) of the editors; and then copyedited by people who also were fact checkers. THis does not mean errors did not creep in, or that every entry was perfect, but it was more likely to be correct than incorrect. When you get something like Dred Scott, which is a very complicated case with hundreds of pages of opinions just in the Supreme Court, it is hard
enough for an expert to get it right just on the facts. An non-specialist or non-expert is unlikely to get it right and is likely to say things which are just not true.
----
Paul Finkelman
President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
Albany Law School
80 New Scotland Avenue
Albany, NY 12208
518-445-3386 (p)
518-445-3363 (f)
[log in to unmask]
www.paulfinkelman.com
________________________________
From: John Philip Adams <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Wikipedia
As in journalism, all stories must have at least 3 sources. Wikipedia, and
Britannica are resources, NOT the complete picture.
You all are scholars, how many sources do you have before coming to a
conclusion.
Legal cases always have at least 3 or attributable sources, otherwise you
are going to be blindsided and LOSE.
Losing is bad
RESEARCH, RESEARCH, and more RESEARCH
JP Adams
Texas
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of James Burnett
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 2:44 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Wikipedia
Yes Melinda
I treat Wikipedia just as I treat family trees from Ancestry or any other
source that come without documentation. They are clues to yet unproven
facts. As we all know in doing our family history work you need or I feel
obligated to drill down to the original records or as close as you can get.
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Melinda Skinner
<[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> While Wikipedia should never be considered a reliable source by
> itself, I have found some information that pointed to explorations
> that I might not have known about and some valuable footnotes that
> have led me to good sources when researching. I know its not
> academically pc to admit even looking at Wikipedia, but I wouldn't toss it
away.
--
Douglas Burnett
Satellite Beach
FL
As a member of the Association of Professional Genealogists (APG), the
National Genealogical Society (NGS), the Florida State Genealogical
Society(FSGS) and the Virginia Genealogical Society(VGS), I support and
adhere to the APG's Code of Ethics.
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
