I actually had a debate with my professor regarding the use of transcripts from this site, which I deemed perfectly legitimate for two reasons. First, it’s part of the Library of Congress. Second, it’s extremely relevant when writing a paper on diplomatic history.
Perhaps that has nothing to do with your Twitter question or maybe it’s a matter of degree. I dunno.
OK, I’m stunned. Twitter as a source? Why not My Little Golden Book? Why not an infomercial?
Those guys selling the Brooklyn Bridge are going to love these folks.
Except I’m not so sure it’s a case of “I’m too dumb to distinguish a good source from a bad source.” It think it’s more likely, “This research job may not be done right but at least it’s done, and done is good.”
FLG, I would agree that site is legit–in fact, I tell my students they need to google to turn up those types of sites. Though conceivably your prof knows something I don’t about the innards of the LOC.
Dale, my students didn’t offer Twitter up, I just came across this site. But it made me think about how the lines of publishing are blurring, and we will have to eventually deal with it. And that first twitter stream has a provenance—a linked article explaining how it was created and who by, which I think complicates the argument even more. So I think it is a matter of degrees removed from FLG’s site, rather than something opposed to it.
Currently I maintain a line between hobbyists and academics putting things up on the web, though I’m cynical enough about academia to not be entirely happy with that one.