[WikiEN-l] Policies, notability et al, was Request to Wikipedians for BBC Documentary

[David Goodman]

Not that it's a single source. The problem is that it's a single
outmoded source, never really balanced and NPOV, and by now wholly
unreliable in almost all subjects, the ancient world included. About
95% of it was written over a century ago, and there is almost nothing
for which new information and new interpretations have made the
existing version inappropriate as the base for a modern encyclopedia.
Essentially all text from there needs to be removed, except for some
quotations to show how things were looked at historically,  and the
relevant portions or articles redone from what would now be considered
reliable sources. To even know what parts can be rescued requires a
sound knowledge of the subject  and its development, and cannot be
done mechanically. The situation is exactly comparable to what it
would be if that EB had simply reprinted Diderot's 1770 Encyclopedie.
It would have been a laughing stock to have presented that as a
current work, and so with our articles derived from it.



David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 7:30 PM, <wjhonson at aol.com> wrote:
> I just want to address this one quote.
>
> <<You also don't have an article if you have a lot of primary
> and tertiary sources, but very few secondary sources.>>
>
> I think this is a false reading of our intent.
> The entire structuring of the "rely primarily on secondary sources" and
> other discussion that primary sources can be included *when* the
> material was already introduced by a secondary source in some way and
> especially in those cases where it conflicts, etc etc.
>
> Doesn't really address and wasn't meant to address a situation where
> all you have is a teritary source (an expression I hate by the way).
> But let's play ball with it anyway.
>
> Let's say that you have the "tertiary" (shudder) source EB 1911,
> "Cleopatra".  You are aware that an enormous number of our articles
> were created *solely* from the 1911 EB are you not?
>
> You might say that makes them stubby but not in the normal sense of the
> WP:Jargon.  We might say "they rely on a single source" but really the
> EB sort of sits above most uses of that condition.  I would say that
> most of us consider is fairly authoritative on a summary view of any
> subject.
>
> So in conclusion, I don't think we have any policy language that would
> say that tertiary sources without secondary ones would make an article
> subject to attack, except possibly a "make this better please" tag.
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>