Steve Bennett wrote:
Hi all, I was wondering if we wanted to try and get some kind of one-sentence slogan/summary/motto/mantra to explain exactly how authoritative Wikipedia is and isn't, and how it should and should not be used. Two thoughts that came to mind:
- Wikipedia is a tertiary source. (Not a primary source, not really
even a secondary source - we discuss and collate primary sources).
- Wikipedia is the first word on everything and the last word on
nothing. (We want to be the first place everyone comes to look up *anything*, but we don't claim to be the final word on *anything*, because we're always based on other sources which have more detail than we do).
I like the second one. It can even be more effective without the parenthetical explanation. Some of the best flowers grow in manure, so you don't want to be digging around them too much.
Given past experience around here, I think the first one would produce endless arguments about the difference between primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Some of the pointed minds we encounter would be best employed as paper spikes on somebody's desk.
Ec