Did you know that the Church of St. Bartholomew, Yeovilton, was declared redundant and then became the Fleet Air Arm’s Memorial Church?
Despite the short length of the article, I was surprised that it had twelve references listed. However, this was just at first glance. These sources could very well be homegrown websites that have no factual basis, whatsoever. The church was around 1300 in the Somerset parish in England. It features stained glass and six bells. The churchyard contains fifteen graves of British and Commonwealth soldiers from World War II. After the war, the church began to deteriorate and was declared redundant in the late eighties. Following its declared redundancy, it was purchased by the Royal Navy and turned into the Fleet Air Arm’s Memorial Church.
The article features sources from historical and military organizations, as well as a book. They also use information from additional niche websites, like a website for churches in the Somerset area. My main concern lies in the usage of websites that appear homemade and have no affiliation with an organization. As a reader and even a potential editor, I’m more like to use and trust information from a site for The National Heritage List for England, rather than Dawson Heritage, in which a couple has created a website for their own projects regarding the churches of Somerset.
This latter example is brought up in Wikipedia’s rules on self-published sources. In some cases, these self-published sources can be used if they meet a certain criteria. What makes me question the source’s credibility is that they do not list how they gleaned the information on their site. Did they physically visit the church? Was this information taken from a book or other work involving the church’s history? Did they take the pictures featured on the site? The more questions I have in regards to a source, the more their credibility goes down for me as a reader.
After reviewing all of the sources, since there were only twelve, I believe that the information presented in the article is reliable. I personally think it’s silly that anyone would want to fabricate information regarding an old church, but you never know. My only concern is the one I’ve mentioned above with the personally made sites. If there were some report of how these person sites received their information, I’d feel more secure about the information they’re presenting. However, with the example of the Dawson Heritage website, the information cited is also found in another source, Nikolaus Pevsner’s book, South and West Somerset (The Buildings of England). The fact that this particular information was found in multiple sources eases my wariness about including the Dawson Heritage website as a credible and legitimate source.
Aside from my neurotic picking apart of sources, what I’m most impressed by – not just in this article – is a Wikipedia editor’s ability to take bits and pieces of information from other sources and turn it into something clear and cohesive. Even more complicated articles on things like scientific analyses are made approachable. The level of synthesis on Wikipedia is something I find to be really remarkable.
0 comments:
Post a Comment