Timeline for On citing common knowledge and giving credit to the 'right' authors
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 7, 2016 at 20:21 | comment | added | R. AS. | That's my point, there are no sources for such information, the available sources are only for specific examples and/or numbers. But we're talking about major worldwide well-known authors, that's why I am assuming that such information are assumed to be common knowledge in my field (even if they are detailed). | |
| May 7, 2016 at 6:30 | comment | added | Debora Weber-Wulff | If you didn't have to do any research to find the information (and can honestly say that), then it is common knowledge. But why not follow the references that the author gives in order to find the source? Of course, you can cite the author of the book that you read, you found it there. But do you want to cite an author who does not give sources for his work? Seems non-scientific to me. | |
| May 5, 2016 at 20:13 | comment | added | R. AS. | Thanks for the answer but it doesn't answer my question. I am well aware of the way and the circumstances behind using secondary citations. But again, it's not what I have asked for. | |
| May 5, 2016 at 18:55 | history | answered | Debora Weber-Wulff | CC BY-SA 3.0 |