On 12 August 2011 18:09, Andrew Gray <[email protected]> wrote:
> I haven't seen Ken's particular case, but I've seen similar ones. > Citing a print source is fine, but some (particularly querulous) > people will occasionally challenge the print source because they don't > believe what it says. In doing so, they'll argue that the person > citing it can't be trusted, or that the transcription referred to is > inaccurate, or - in this case - that there is something inherently > wrong with the scanned file referred to. See, for example, > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kurt_Meyer_(SS_general) which used > this style of argument before moving swiftly on to denying the > existence of anyone who'd ever read the book. > It's a conceptually silly argument - it basically amounts to assuming > deliberate deception at some point in the chain of evidence, which > isn't a reasonable assumption in 98% of cases - but if someone is > insistent enough, they can probably stonewall with it until the other > party throws their hands up and gives in. And, sooner or later, we all > do. That's a rather different claim than that it is standard and accepted practice, which is what Ken was clearly implying. - d. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
