[WikiEN-l] Primary sources

[zero 0000]

-----
> 
> Message: 6

> From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator at gmail.com>
> On 3/17/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Primary sources are hard if not impossible to verify. Don't use
them.
> 
> I'm hoping you mean "unpublished oral accounts" when you say "primary
sources".
> 
> Primary sources are *by definition* preferable to secondary sources
> in most cases.

There are important exceptions to this.  Some types of primary source
need interpretation that requires expertise.  For example, diaries and
autobiographies are often inaccurate and self-serving, and intelligence
reports often include rumors and suspicions along with facts.  In such
a
case, it can be better to rely on an expert who has examined the
evidence
and weighed it against other evidence and context.  At least one should
check on secondary sources to see whether there is any dispute over the
accuracy of the primary source.

Zero.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com