On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
Anthony wrote:
And it's not a primary source. "In
historiography, a primary source
(also
called original source) is a document, recording,
artifact, or other
source
of information that was created at the time under
study, usually by a
source
with direct personal knowledge of the events
being described." Social
security didn't even exist in 1904, so clearly this information was not
created in 1904.
The requirement that Social Security Numbers of newborn children appear
on a tax return is relatively recent. Before 1989 the person applied
himself.
I thought your parents could still apply for you back then, but maybe I'm
wrong. Nowadays they don't quite force you to get them but you can't claim
any tax deductions/credits/etc without them. But even today I'm not sure
it's a primary source. It's generally a secondary source, which is based on
your birth certificate, which is the primary source. (And there are plenty
of exceptions to that - not everyone has a birth certificate, after all.)
It's just a bad secondary source, because it presents conclusions without
backing those conclusions up with explanations.
Still, probably worthy of a mention if it contradicts others sources which
are presented in the article, and isn't proven to be incorrect by any of
those other sources. (But how do you come up with a hard and fast rule
about that? I don't think you can.)
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Rob <gamaliel8(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Anthony
<wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
If they're available. But what if
they're not? Is it okay to mention
that
the contradictory information exists?
I doubt you're going to come up with a hard and fast rule which doesn't
have
any unintended consequences. Ultimately, the
fact that "everyone can
edit"
ensures a system of "verifiability, not
truth".
You're absolutely right, availability is an issue. But if we have a
hard and fast rule the other way and say sources like the SSDI are
okay, then there's no incentive to look for that secondary source
which does explain the issue. We might, in rare cases, settle for the
SSDI if absolutely necessary, but not without a reasonable search,
which in this particular case clearly hadn't been done.
Right, the problem cuts both ways. The best source, it seems, would be a
reliable secondary source which details the primary sources it relies upon
and explains why it has come to the conclusions it has come to about them.
But that's not always available.