Artful Codger: I can't but totally disagree. I'm a big fan of Malcolm's simply because I know I can trust what he posts as "best source." This is not snobbery, this is simple scholarship. And I much admire him for never being lazy about it. I say that as a person (that is, me) who is often sloppy about it against my best intentions.   

If we present answers or new info as "I think" or "I seem to recall" that's one thing. People know to take it with a grain of salt. If we state a "fact" we should be able to back that up at least with our source. Further, we should provide some sense of the reliability of the source. Most of the Web has the reliability of a grade school research paper.

It's why I caution people not to take my Happy posts too seriously or rely on them as authoritative. And why I welcome expansions & corrections. Some are authoritative, yes, but most aren't. The earliest ones collected are generally the best for research as well as the worst for attribution. (They don't have to be authoritative really. Just a jumping-off place for people to look into things.)

His other point was that copying wholesale from a source without attribution is just plain rude. Same today as it was 100 years ago. It's got a name - plagiarism.

I further begin to regret that I've used the web at all for research. It's so easy to use compared to finding & reading source books (themselves, needing to be assessed for reliability) that it's damned seductive. BUT, as has often been posted, you can post any crap you like on the web and the search engines do not score for accuracy.

Lastly, I'm finding that URLs frequently change or fall to disuse. What use to cite a link I picked up 5 years ago when the author dismantled it 3 years ago?   

Now, how about returning to the topic?

Good idea. Er, what was it again?

1) I have a bunch of old and "neo-old" Luddite songs but not a single firm date to attach any of them to.   Are there any.

2) Is there any further info on whether General Ludd was a real or mythical person?