Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonist
I agree with your last sentence. But I kind of disagree, that Wikipedia is "never" a credible source. Much more often, than not, the information is accurate.
|
The context of the discussion is using Wikipedia to cite for information (as in "Works Cited" or "Bibliography" page). I'm not talk about it as a source that shouldn't be used to build up ideas about a topic. Those two are vastly different things. And I've mentioned the latter as a good way to use Wikipedia.
Quote:
|
As to research, at least for what I do, digital is much, much better, than dealing with paper volumes. One can search through a large amount of information much faster, can go back and forth among a great number of sources with ease, etc.. But I know that some disagree, and that's fine, for them.
|
Let's also not make the logical leap from Wikipedia to thinking that I'm talking about all digital sources, if that is the intention ;-)
Quote:
|
And, the open-source text-books idea sounds good to me. It also does not preclude having editor(s), so I don't see what the problem is.
|
I never made a comment about open-source textbook as being good or bad. There are a lot of open-source journals if by open-source people mean free. The English Server has long hosted many free open-source journals. Check it out. I used to be part of the department that produced The English Server.
I don't know if all those comments were directed to me, but they seem to be given how you started your post. But I could be wrong.