From: Laval Hunsucker <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 13:27:37 -0700

We seem here to have turned to a whole 'nuther kettle o' fish --
seein' as how the query concerned -- and the responses have
up to now correspondingly oriented themselves toward -- the
question of the preferable approach "[w]hen conducting
literature reviews, especially systematic literature reviews".
You're dealing in your post below, aren't you, with a rather
different kind of situation, with a quite different sort of
information need. ( Notwithstanding the fact that the Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy does normally have, at least insofar
as I can judge from my own experience as a user of that resource,
quite decent bibliographies accompanying the articles. )

- Laval Hunsucker
  Breukelen, Nederland


----- Original Message -----
> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:31:26 -0500
>
> I suspect a lot depends on how much the searcher already knows. E.g.,
> because I know philosophy well, I do not generally start with a plain
> Google search or even use Wikipedia but go straight to the
> authoritative and highly respected free online resource in the field,
> the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, where I am going to get a
> much more sophisticated answer to my query than I likely would get
> from more generic sources.  Any study of usage, to be really
> enlightening, should take this kind of level of knowledge of the user
> into account.
>
> Sandy Thatcher