geni wrote:
On 5/3/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
No, that would be citing a _primary_ source, which is entirely within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Indeed, in many cases the game itself would probably be a lot easier to get ahold of for verification than old issues of game magazines that might discuss it.
By that standard I could give you the instructions for doing various chemical experiments (ones that don't appear in the lititure) as a source.
Not at all. I use that standard and I would not consider your example to be a "primary source," so you're putting something else into the mix to reach that conclusion not present in my standard. Perhaps I'm not explaining it clearly or we have a basic difference in underlying philosophy.
IMO the key difference between the two is that a computer game is a work of "literature" (in a broad sense) whereas a pile of chemicals is not. You "read" a game by playing it but you don't "read" a pile of chemicals by combining them in various predefined ways.