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