What he said. If there's a field you know a lot about, you will be astonished/annoyed at the number of errors you see in "official" sources about that field, no mater what the medium.
Just as an example, I recently picked up volume 4 of Absolute Sandman, a series which I followed obsessively in its various incarnations. It includes a 2-page text piece "Timeline of The Sandman" which is *riddled* with errors, inconsistencies, and oversights.
There's just no such thing as an authoritative secondary source. If you didn't look at the originals yourself, you can't trust it completely. IME, wikipedia scores well above average in reliability, but that doesn't mean I give it my complete trust, any more than I trust any secondary source.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-01 05:28 pm (UTC)Just as an example, I recently picked up volume 4 of Absolute Sandman, a series which I followed obsessively in its various incarnations. It includes a 2-page text piece "Timeline of The Sandman" which is *riddled* with errors, inconsistencies, and oversights.
There's just no such thing as an authoritative secondary source. If you didn't look at the originals yourself, you can't trust it completely. IME, wikipedia scores well above average in reliability, but that doesn't mean I give it my complete trust, any more than I trust any secondary source.