> > On Dec 12, 2008, at 6:09 PM, George Herbert wrote: > >> Even a superlative college paper is only rarely notable or significant >> criticism. Grad students' product might be, professors or >> professional critics moreso. But there are plenty of >> out-in-left-field reviewers and critics who lie outside the body of >> normal academic criticism et al. >> >> Our criteria for sources have to include enough guidance for filtering >> that we can filter out random not-notable commentary. What line are >> we trying to draw - and why. We have to draw the line, otherwise we >> do become Cruftpedia. We're not here to collect 101 million grade >> school essays on "Are you there, God? It's me, Margaret" in the >> article on the book. > > There certainly are loonies in the field, but I'd say more papers get > rejected from journals for being boring than for being wrong. Which is > to say, there's a lot of stuff that is very fundamental and obvious > that you'd see in college papers, but not in published essays. > > Which is part of the problem. There's a lot of stuff that, in > academia, we just consider too obvious to publish. > > -Phil
Definitely, as it is that obvious stuff which ought to be included in our articles. Novel new takes on a subject, maybe not. Fred _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
