XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien
From: le@top.put.com
In rec.arts.books.tolkien Julian Bradfield wrote:
> On 2022-02-07, Paul S Person wrote:
>> That is all very well but, as Louis Epstein points out in his reply,
>> both the book and the film are public works, and comparing two public
>> works which millions of people have experienced is not a form of
>> crackpottery.
>
> But it is the word of a random on the internet, which can only be
> checked by re-doing the research oneself.
> Rightly or wrongly, Wikipedia thinks that material published by real
> publishers is more likely to be accurate than randoms on the net.
And when it is wrong,it needs to be regularly denounced.
>> Not to mention the possibility that such comparisons have been
>> published. Or that anyone who has experienced both can point them out.
>
> If they have been published, there's a source.
>
>> Which gets us to another of his points: take the prohibition to
>> extremes and stating "grass is green" would be prohibited because it
>> is "original research". Common knowledge is, well, /common/.
>
> It is not hard to find a published reference for the greenness of
> grass.
However,it is profoundly foolish to treat a particular
published reference as conferring validity on a ubiquituously
known fact.
> There's nothing specific to Wikipedia about this policy - all
> reputable encyclopaedias do the same. Any article considered by
> Britannica must have a full list of sources so that the research
> editor can check the accuracy of the article.
>
> Is Britannica a "pile of vomit" too, because it doesn't commission
> original research?
Britannica has signed articles on a variety of topics
that represent the writer's scholarship.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
