CJ, would you ever consider annotating ‘The Van Halen Encyclopedia’? I think it is really of utmost importance that each entry have a list of references and supporting evidence in order for the book to be a credible source of reference.
Agree. The only obstacle would be that a good % of the newer updates I get are from those who wish to remain anonymous, but did work with/for the band. I'm sure I can create a separate annotation for anonymous contributors, but the "receipts" couldn't be public -- until they write their own books :)
That presents a problem because unless these anonymous sources can be corroborated by evidence, their word alone generally can’t be counted on as fact, even if it were a statement by Donn or Ted. Every entry needs to have evidence of some sort in order for any reader to take it seriously.
Annotations and citations are great. I will absolutely include them in any new book. However, I will not reveal the identities of sources who do not want to be identified. I don't think I'd trust any writer who would violate that promise to source.
It's all about trust. Wikipedia cites everything, but I definitely don't trust it with Van Halen information. The "evidence" cited is often worthless. I don't have the resources to be a Wikipedia anyway. But, I will do my best.
If I build trust, this will be a success. If not, there's plenty of other writers who'd be happy to copy and paste Wikipedia. I think there's an opportunity here for something better.
I will never believe anything without proof and I can’t imagine why anybody else would. You can’t just say something without citation or evidence and expect anyone to believe it. Would you?
I’m amazed that you didn’t cite your references to begin with. I’m not trying to be combative, but I’m curious why you didn’t establish citations from the beginning? Anything that anonymous sources would reveal should be only a tiny portion of the information contained in the book as a whole, so if you must maintain the anonymity of these people, assuming they are credible, at least you could include a caveat such as “a source close to the band who wished to remain anonymous says ‘X-Y-Z’ and there is no other evidence that I could find to corroborate what they have said so take this entry with a grain of salt because it can’t be accepted as proven fact” or words to that effect.
CJ, would you ever consider annotating ‘The Van Halen Encyclopedia’? I think it is really of utmost importance that each entry have a list of references and supporting evidence in order for the book to be a credible source of reference.
Agree. The only obstacle would be that a good % of the newer updates I get are from those who wish to remain anonymous, but did work with/for the band. I'm sure I can create a separate annotation for anonymous contributors, but the "receipts" couldn't be public -- until they write their own books :)
That presents a problem because unless these anonymous sources can be corroborated by evidence, their word alone generally can’t be counted on as fact, even if it were a statement by Donn or Ted. Every entry needs to have evidence of some sort in order for any reader to take it seriously.
I agree with everything but the last sentence.
I don’t follow? Why should I take a statement with no evidence as fact?
You shouldn't.
Annotations and citations are great. I will absolutely include them in any new book. However, I will not reveal the identities of sources who do not want to be identified. I don't think I'd trust any writer who would violate that promise to source.
It's all about trust. Wikipedia cites everything, but I definitely don't trust it with Van Halen information. The "evidence" cited is often worthless. I don't have the resources to be a Wikipedia anyway. But, I will do my best.
If I build trust, this will be a success. If not, there's plenty of other writers who'd be happy to copy and paste Wikipedia. I think there's an opportunity here for something better.
I will never believe anything without proof and I can’t imagine why anybody else would. You can’t just say something without citation or evidence and expect anyone to believe it. Would you?
I’m amazed that you didn’t cite your references to begin with. I’m not trying to be combative, but I’m curious why you didn’t establish citations from the beginning? Anything that anonymous sources would reveal should be only a tiny portion of the information contained in the book as a whole, so if you must maintain the anonymity of these people, assuming they are credible, at least you could include a caveat such as “a source close to the band who wished to remain anonymous says ‘X-Y-Z’ and there is no other evidence that I could find to corroborate what they have said so take this entry with a grain of salt because it can’t be accepted as proven fact” or words to that effect.