> On Apr 22, 3:21 pm, "Dr. Barry Worthington" abertay.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>

>> On 20 Apr, 13:05, Jumbo cupolagallery.com> wrote:

>
> pointing out

>>> I'm addressing someone who prefixes their web-name "Dr.")

>

>> And why not?

>
> Well, I didn't say you "shouldn't" do it.
>

>>> Some (better) encyclopedias can be used as more than
>>> just starting points. If someone is writing a dissertation on, say, As
>>> You Like It and wants some basic information on the bush-signs outside
>>> early modern English wine-shops, and they go to a GOOD encyclopedia,
>>> they might find enough in one stop for their purposes in that
>>> instance.

>

>> Yes, but a serious scholar in that field would surely go to Eric
>> Partridge first.

>
> A serious scholar might go to Partridge first, but if they didn't I
> wouldn't decide they weren't a "serious" scholar. AFAIC, serious
> scholars can work in all sorts of ways.
>

>> People who research at that level will only cite
>> encyclopaedias for a special reason (For example, in the past, I have
>> cited the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia.)

>
> Again, I wouldn't like to be quite so prescriptive. People who
> research at "that level" might choose to cite an encyclopedia because
> they looked there and found what they needed for their purposes. How
> that procedure is judged should depend on the context.
>

>>>It's harsh to call that lazy if it represents the checking

>

>>> of a minor detail in a 15000 word essay.

>

>> An essay or a dissertation?

>
> AFAIA, in British English "essay" can be used as a synoynm for
> "dissertation", especially when an author wishes to avoid repetition
> and the reference is of local subsequentiality, absence of ambiguity
> permitting.
>

>> An undergraduate might get away with it,
>> but a postgraduate ought to have a good reason...

>
> "Good" reason? You mean, they used an encyclopedia and it provided
> them with basic information adequate for their purposes?
>
>
>

>>> If they went to Wikipedia,
>>> given the way its compiled, they would have to do extra checking to
>>> corroborate basic facts.

>

>> Quite. That's because of idiots like the original poster.

>
> Granted the OP is an idiot (on the abundant evidence of his/her posts
> on various subjects), I woudn't agree that all would-be saboteurs and
> tamperers of/with things like Wikipedia are idiots. They too may have
> their "special" reasons.