Ok, it seems like I have opened pandora's box, my point has long since been lost.
I'll try to re-iterate. Citation does not mean only books. In history or anthropology circles, oral history, and living informants are highly valued. Oral history definitely is as valid as any written reference. I have never argued against oral history. I have repeated time and time again that I value oral history, and wish I could meet more people who are willing to share their knowledge.
However, if you dont credit a source, then all I am left to understand that is that the information is coming from your opinion. The credit does not have to be overly formal. But simply something as in the Maguindanao story of X, or my lolo told me, or even an elder told me gives us a point of reference. However, saying oh this is that, or other vague statements. Well its contextless.
Finally, while I am just as eager for tidbits of information where I can find it, I cannot simply accept things on faith. Sometimes errors occur. Stone's is such an example. Do we not cross-reference and try to check the validity of a source? Cross-referencing is always good, and part of the reason why I seek to learn still. If I could rest with one reference, then my journey would be over. But I am always, seeking to know why. If a catalog calls an item X, why? If a book says X, why? I dont hope to have all the answers, but would like to know why.
|