While these two works are well-written with a lot of good advice, I do have a few disagreements.
First, I do not feel that it is necessary to seek out the library. It can often be tedious, difficult to navigate, not have what you are looking for, etc. In the age of technology, most books are in electronic form. It is, of course, important to seek out books but this can be done online I feel. You save a lot of time, and occasionally, money. It streamlines the process to make it simpler and easier to navigate. And doing it online allows for a wider variety of books because you have access to almost every book ever written.
Second, I am not a fan of the phrase 'quality source'. I feel that just about every source is a quality source, with limited exceptions including things like timecube or 4chan. Every source is someone's perspective and to say that perspective is not 'quality' seems to reflect very exclusive behavior. I would argue, instead, that some sources give more general knowledge while others give more specialized knowledge.
Third, I am not entirely sure that advertisements always reflect a commercial bias. In fact, the example in the book itself does not indicate that. I feel that sending that message closes off a lot of resources to students when, oftentimes, the advertisements have nothing at all to do with the content.
I think it's good to have a nuanced view about what makes a "good" source. You're right, Haiillie, depending on the project and your purposes all kinds of sources can be relevant. However, as we discussed in class, the more specialized the audience you're writing for the tighter the rules of evidence. The sources that will be authoritative (persuasive) narrow.
ReplyDeleteHere's a reason to actually go the library: browsing books around the one that you're looking for. You'd be amazed what you can find.