WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/6/2009 5:40:09 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, cbeckhorn@fastmail.fm writes:
If by "community" you mean "WP policy" then no such decision has been made. It is perfectly acceptable to write certain articles entirely from primary sources. Indeed, many biographical articles are written entirely from primary sources. But I agree that most articles that can be based mostly off of secondary sources should be based off of secondary sources.>>
No, by community I mean that our policy was and is the creation of our policy editors.
I agree that this is a huge problem. It puts the policy writers in conflict with those who like to make contributions.
And then the policy instructs the editors, who then modify it again, and it then instructs again, in a feedback loop. We as a community, set our own policy, after the core nebulous concepts were outlined. I dispute that it is acceptable to write using solely primary sources, or that our policy states that.
Most of us do not participate in policy editing because we find the whole process to be one big mind-fuck. That said, it is grossly arrogant to perpetrate the myth that the policy writers reflect the community. The real contributors function best in the topics that interest them, and if they're lucky they'll avoid the wrath of some autocratic know-nothing that wants to impose the literal interpretation of obscure policy.
If you do not find primary sources acceptable that's fine; don't use them in your own writing. That does not justify your dictating such a semantic distinction on others.
Ec