At 09:43 AM 1/5/04 -0500, Ed Poor wrote:
>Daniel Mayer declared that:
>
> > ...Wikipedia is not a primary source. Once and /if/
> > that person is able to get a real publisher to publish
> > their autobiography, then and /only/ then do we use
> > their autobiography as a source. We need some sort of
> > filter.
>
>How can you say that Wikipedia is not a primary source?
>
>I thought our original aim was to have articles written by contributors
>who actually know something about what they're writing. People are
>always encouraging me to spend less time editing other contributors'
>work or rewriting factoids I discover on-line on in books -- and more
>time contributing my unique knowledge of my two areas of expertise: the
>Unification Church and software development.
When we say that Wikipedia is not a primary source, we mean that
information about the Unification Church--its organization, beliefs,
and so on--should not be *first* or *only* available in Wikipedia. You
as a member of that church know enough to write about it, which is
good; it would not be appropriate for the Reverend Moon to use Wikipedia
to publish sermons or proclaim doctrine. Similarly, if you have a new
and better method of software development, Wikipedia is not the place
to proclaim it.