On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
If the you've understood a rule as some formality
that
you must comply with when it clearly does not help you've
misunderstood something. (Either the rule, the applicability of the
rule, or that it helps; Even a poorly drafted rule can't bind you to
pointless mechanisations: thats part of the core purpose of WP:IAR)
I'm not sure about that. The rule against original research is a good
example of a rule to which IAR can't really apply - at least not in all
situations. The rule is there to protect the encyclopedia from crackpots.
But no one thinks they're a crackpot. So if you have an exception for
original research which improves the encyclopedia, you might as well not
have the rule in the first place.
If a secondary source isn't a synthesis and analysis of primary source
material, then it's not really a secondary
source.
[snip]
Part of your confusion probably stems from that fact that wikipedians
often treat news reports like secondary sources. Good
reporting is a
kind of scolarship, but good reporting is rare. More often news
reporting is just a lossy regurgitation of primary source material (or
wikipedia!) or even just barely informed speculation. But thats a
problem with Wikipedia's misunderstanding the general worthlessness of
news-media, not a problem with preferring secondary sources over
primary sources. The whole notion of distinct classes of "primary
source" and "secondary source" doesn't map especially well.
Right on. Very well put.