From: "Tony Sidaway"
<minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com>
SlimVirgin wrote:
I agree that citing the original document is better than citing a
secondary source, though others might argue that makes it hard for the
reader and other editors to check that Wikipedia is quoting
accurately.
I do hope that nobody would make such an argument. We should always cite
primary sources where at all possible, and this instance shows the
importance of correctly handling secondary sources.
Indeed. And the way *not* to handle them is to put caveats beside them
stating (in so many words) that "we have not been able to verify these as
truthful" (which, of course, we don't do). Doing so, of course, would be
highly POV, since it would naturally create the impression that the sources
were suspect and untrustworthy, rather than the actual case that certain
editors are unwilling or unable to check the primary references. The fact
that only a tiny number of seconday sources seem to even be candidates for
this kind of treatment is interesting.
Jay.