On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Richard Jensen <rjen...@uic.edu> wrote:
> JSTOR reports there were about 300 articles on Shakespeare a year in > scholarly journals in 1997 to 2006; none of them are cited, nor any since > then and only one before then. This is typical as well of political and > military history. Wiki editors are not using scholarly journals. I assume > that is because they are unaware of them. ~~~~ > > > They are not aware of the use of scholarly articles for use on Shakespeare's article or period? If period, there are many places where it would be unlikely that an article could be sourced well using scholarly texts. Think most biographies of living people. Think sports. (And if you're going to do sports, the best histories are found in books.) A lot of this changes from discipline to discipline, topic to topic. (MEDRS generally prohibits the use of citing primary source research on English Wikipedia for medical articles, so it would be inappropriate to do so.) In the case of Shakespeare, what of those 300 recent scholarly works do you think are seminal to put into the article? Are there any that would likely be problematic because of [[WP:FRINGE]]? The reasons why people don't use academic articles are more complicated than your simplistic comment would suggest. I spent about three hours crawling through a library looking for research related to Lauren Jackson and I can tell you none of the academic work would likely apply. I doubt you could source an article on it. -- twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
