I've been struggling with this a bit myself. I have to disagree with
MacGyver, I think primary sources definitely play a role in good
encyclopedic writing. For instance, the use of quotes from a published play
could easily be useful in an article about that play. In this case the
primary source would be easily verifiable and useful, so it's complex.
I try to only use primary sources to back up opinions found in secondary
sources. Don't use a bunch of primary sources to come to a conclusion which
is not supported in your secondary sources, since this definitely becomes
original research. An example of where I've tried to do this is in [[Hymn to
St. Cecilia]], where I quote from /published/ primary source material to
support views expressed in other secondary sources.
Makemi
On 3/17/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Primary sources are hard if not impossible to verify. Don't use them.
Mgm
On 3/17/06, Jonathan <dzonatas(a)dzonux.net> wrote:
Hello,
If someone uses a primary source, should the context be quoted directly?
If it is not, would that constitute original research? Another words, if
someone takes the primary source and interprets it to his or her own
need, it does seem like a re-creation of a primary source. It's like
original research in an attempt to make the primary source a secondary
source.
I've seen this kind of discussion before. The result was that all
scholarly work is always based on secondary scholastic sources. That
does not give an answer to the primary sources as above, but it does
shed some insight into non-scholarly source creep.
Feedback is appreciated.
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l