WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/6/2009 5:40:09 P.M. Pacific
Standard Time,
cbeckhorn(a)fastmail.fm writes:
If by "community" you mean "WP policy" then no such decision has
been
made. It is perfectly acceptable to write certain articles entirely from
primary sources. Indeed, many biographical articles are written entirely
from primary sources. But I agree that most articles that can be based
mostly off of secondary sources should be based off of secondary
sources.>>
-----------------------
No, by community I mean that our policy was and is the creation of our
policy editors.
I agree that this is a huge problem. It puts the policy writers
in
conflict with those who like to make contributions.
And then the policy instructs the editors, who then
modify it
again, and it then instructs again, in a feedback loop. We as a community, set
our own policy, after the core nebulous concepts were outlined. I dispute
that it is acceptable to write using solely primary sources, or that our
policy states that.
Most of us do not participate in policy editing because we find the
whole process to be one big mind-fuck. That said, it is grossly
arrogant to perpetrate the myth that the policy writers reflect the
community. The real contributors function best in the topics that
interest them, and if they're lucky they'll avoid the wrath of some
autocratic know-nothing that wants to impose the literal interpretation
of obscure policy.
If you do not find primary sources acceptable that's fine; don't use
them in your own writing. That does not justify your dictating such a
semantic distinction on others.
Ec