CarylW Posted 17 April , 2011 Share Posted 17 April , 2011 How reliable a source is Spartacus Educational? Bearing in mind that Wikipedia isn't considered a very reliable source in academic quarters. Students and school pupils use Spartacus Educational don't they? Or do they? Caryl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Tucker Posted 17 April , 2011 Share Posted 17 April , 2011 An excellent site - the contributors know what they are doing and having researched subjects thoroughly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarylW Posted 17 April , 2011 Author Share Posted 17 April , 2011 An excellent site - the contributors know what they are doing and having researched subjects thoroughly Thank you Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnumbellum Posted 19 April , 2011 Share Posted 19 April , 2011 An excellent site - the contributors know what they are doing and having researched subjects thoroughly I beg to differ. Having been concerned about a number of inaccuracies on the site, I corresponded with the originator. It appears that the material is mainly written by him, an experienced teacher and writer of educational material, but, on his own admission, by no means an expert on all aspects of history. His "research" is confined to secondary sources, and, therefore, the quality of his writing necessarily depends on the quality of the books he happens to use. One example of the lack of care is his constant reference to "Bertram" Russell, when he means Bertrand Russell. Another is his reference to the Princetown Work Centre as a "detention centre". In my correspondence I suggested a few corrections, some of which he incorporated, but then I realised that submitting corrections could be a never-ending game for which I would get no credit, still less payment, and gave up. Like Wikipedia, Spartacus Educational, should be read with care, and information cross-checked with other sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 19 April , 2011 Share Posted 19 April , 2011 I beg to differ. Having been concerned about a number of inaccuracies on the site, I corresponded with the originator. It appears that the material is mainly written by him, an experienced teacher and writer of educational material, but, on his own admission, by no means an expert on all aspects of history. His "research" is confined to secondary sources, and, therefore, the quality of his writing necessarily depends on the quality of the books he happens to use. One example of the lack of care is his constant reference to "Bertram" Russell, when he means Bertrand Russell. Another is his reference to the Princetown Work Centre as a "detention centre". In my correspondence I suggested a few corrections, some of which he incorporated, but then I realised that submitting corrections could be a never-ending game for which I would get no credit, still less payment, and gave up. Like Wikipedia, Spartacus Educational, should be read with care, and information cross-checked with other sources. Your analysis would be more convincing if it were not for the fact that Bertram is a form of Bertrand and Russell was frequently so called (a bit like Anthony and Tony Benn) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Hesketh Posted 20 April , 2011 Share Posted 20 April , 2011 Students and school pupils use Spartacus Educational don't they? Or do they? They do, and on the whole I agree with Alan. For GCSE level it's a very useful source and, whilst occasional innacuracies exist, they are rare and I would recommend it highly to students at that level. The content lacks the cut and thrust of historiographal trends and variations in interpretation and opts for the 'standard' descriptions / explanations - but at GCSE level students are not required to engage with such issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 20 April , 2011 Share Posted 20 April , 2011 Like Wikipedia, Spartacus Educational, should be read with care, and information cross-checked with other sources. Agreed. And I'd take that view about other generally secondary sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Tucker Posted 20 April , 2011 Share Posted 20 April , 2011 One of the most useful things about Spartacus is the range of secondary sources they use - some very difficult to obtain. Also not all secondary sources - lots of quotes from memoirs, autobiographies and letters. A comparison with wiki is unfair as all Spartacus sources are properly acknowledged so you can make up your own mind. I taught an 'A' Level unit where Spartacus has a range of superb material (not Great War). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 20 April , 2011 Share Posted 20 April , 2011 One of the most useful things about Spartacus is the range of secondary sources they use - some very difficult to obtain. Also not all secondary sources - lots of quotes from memoirs, autobiographies and letters. A comparison with wiki is unfair as all Spartacus sources are properly acknowledged so you can make up your own mind. I taught an 'A' Level unit where Spartacus has a range of superb material (not Great War). Spartacus E provides a useful overview if that's all you need and a starting point if you want to dig further. It can contain errors but often only at a level that gets us pedants and nit pickers overwrought. Occasionally it perpetuates a common myth but it always seems more reliable than Wiki. Its always a good principle to cross check all sources (not just secondary ones) as even in official accounts, diaries, letters etc etc errors can be made (just as in a court an eyewitness account often has to be supported with forensic evidence) and how often do two contemporary accounts of the same event differ? Unfortunately what is desirable and what is practical don't always match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IPT Posted 20 April , 2011 Share Posted 20 April , 2011 I'm Spartacus Educational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthergw Posted 20 April , 2011 Share Posted 20 April , 2011 Any site is as reliable as it's references. I am dubious about the differentiation between primary and secondary sources as far as reliability is concerned. If a secondary source quotes a primary source is that information suddenly suspect? At what stage does information become secondary? When Bourne & Sheffield quote Haig's diary, chapter and verse, their book is secondary but is it any less reliable? The chances are good that General Haig was quoting a staff report which had collated several field reports put on paper by adjutants from verbal reports given by the Sergeant who led the patrol which included the man who heard the German say it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 20 April , 2011 Share Posted 20 April , 2011 I am Spartacus Educational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 20 April , 2011 Share Posted 20 April , 2011 At what stage does information become secondary? At the point, say, when someone uses Bourne & Sheffield's conclusions as "evidence" because they had used Haig's diary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 20 April , 2011 Share Posted 20 April , 2011 Any site is as reliable as it's references. I am dubious about the differentiation between primary and secondary sources as far as reliability is concerned. If a secondary source quotes a primary source is that information suddenly suspect? At what stage does information become secondary? When Bourne & Sheffield quote Haig's diary, chapter and verse, their book is secondary but is it any less reliable? The chances are good that General Haig was quoting a staff report which had collated several field reports put on paper by adjutants from verbal reports given by the Sergeant who led the patrol which included the man who heard the German say it. Well said Many revered primary sources may be taken on faith alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthergw Posted 20 April , 2011 Share Posted 20 April , 2011 At the point, say, when someone uses Bourne & Sheffield's conclusions as "evidence" because they had used Haig's diary. How would you refute the statements? If that person accurately quotes B&S and we accept that they accurately reproduced the excerpt from Haig? A fact remains a fact regardless of how many times it is repeated. I distrust reports that tell me how someone felt on the day but if Haig asked an officer to light a cigarette to judge wind speed, then he did it and whether I was there to see it or am relying on a third hand report is of no significance. As I said, we rely on the references. " According to Capt. Duff of the Blankshires who was present...", is a primary reference and if I say that I read in a book that Mrs Duff's biography of her late lamented said that, " Haig asked Capt Bond ....." then that is still relating a verifiable fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Tucker Posted 20 April , 2011 Share Posted 20 April , 2011 We are starting to nit-pick a bit here. All sources must be judged in a critical, sceptical light with an eye to their provenance and context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarylW Posted 20 April , 2011 Author Share Posted 20 April , 2011 Thanks for all replies. I hear what you are all saying and understand, I really do Although I haven't had the benefit of higher academic education, (only vocational), I have learned from those who have to think outside of the box and not to accept all that is written as fact and to research myself in other sources, and to check sources when available. While studying for a certificate in another subject, I've also been taught how to research, and the difference between primary and secondary resources, but also taught that not everything is written in stone, or not everything written in stone is correct! I'm happier now using Spartacus Educational, always bearing in mind the above Caryl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete1052 Posted 20 April , 2011 Share Posted 20 April , 2011 Websites like Wiki and Spartacus are good first stops for finding out the superficial basic facts about a subject, but that's about all. As Alan Tucker points out, it's okay for high school students. However, if you're working on a degree at university you'd best go to the library and read some books. If you want to publish something authoritative in a scholarly journal you'd best do your own research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarylW Posted 20 April , 2011 Author Share Posted 20 April , 2011 Websites like Wiki and Spartacus are good first stops for finding out the superficial basic facts about a subject, but that's about all. As Alan Tucker points out, it's okay for high school students. However, if you're working on a degree at university you'd best go to the library and read some books. If you want to publish something authoritative in a scholarly journal you'd best do your own research. Was this intended for me or in general? If it's the former, let me assure you that I'm happy enough with superficial (if it's accurate, which is why I asked about the reliability of Spartacus as a source) for something of a passing interest and then I can and do research further myself if I have a deeper interest, or a need to look into something more. I do also read books - a lot. I research things myself - a lot. I'm not working on a degree at university, or planning to publish anything in a scholarly journal If you're not advising me, then good advice and I agree Caryl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now