[WikiEN-l] Primary sources

[The Cunctator]

On 3/20/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> True, but I think one should consult secondary sources *first* for our
> project, and primary sources *second*. You cannot consult a primary
> source without an interpretative framework, and you should be deriving
> that from a secondary source, in my interpretation of [[WP:NOR]].
> Primary sources are great for adding color and authenticity to an
> article -- nobody disputes that -- but articles based solely on
> primary sources are chancy indeed, and no individual user's individual
> idiosyncratic interpretation of a primary source should trump the
> interpretation given in a secondary source. The people who usually
> insist on primary sources over secondary sources are usually the ones
> who think that the "establishment" opinion is bunk -- a fairly good
> indication of a NPOV violation or a NOR violation.


I'm just less impressed than most by the necessity of relying on the
expertise of experts. I have to admit that I do think you're being
territorial. There's little reason for the contextualization and
interpretation that historians do to not happen on Wikipedia. And that
doesn't require original research. in theory, if historians are basing their
judgment purely on context and not personal biases, then the interlinking of
Wikipedia should be a sufficient equivalent.

But it's not a huge deal to me. I just personally would rather rely on my
own judgment than be forced to see the world through the interpretation of
others.