<<n a message dated 1/6/2009 2:37:30 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, cbeckhorn@fastmail.fm writes:
* For results that are sufficiently new that they are not yet covered by secondary literature. I can think of several research programs with numerous papers by numerous independent authors, with significant scientific interest, but no coverage outside of journals. These areas have no sources that on their face are accessible to a reader without specialized knowledge; the wikipedia article may be the most accesible writing on the subject. >> ----------------------------------- I'm not comfortable with the idea that Wikipedia is going to be the *source* for a new summary and synthesize of primary source material. That is the very position that we strove to exclude in the policy language.
Rather, we should be the source for a new summary and synthesize of secondary material, with balancing primary interjections where needed.
Once we begin to collect primary material as a new presentation, than we are becoming the very textbooks that we are supposed to be citing as our sources.
Encyclopedias are not textbooks, they summarize textbooks. Authors of encyclopedia articles sometimes interject some primary material, but only in brief, sporadic, isolated cases, and perhaps in some cases where they themselves are editors of new material outside the work.
I think that the policy patrollers would agree with the essential understanding that primary source material should supplement articles. Articles should not be essentially based upon it. It's use should be auxiliary. *If* there is a specific situation where an article has no secondary source citations, than a realistic question could be raised as to why we have an article on it whatsoever.
Specifics would be helpful.
Will Johnson
**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)