On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
The idea that a newspaper article that quotes the
date from the primary
source is going to do any more sanity checking than you would... isn't true.
[snip]
In this context, the secondary source is "I
found a reference to a newspaper
article which quotes the date". It's not going to discuss the conflict the
way you describe--it's just more acceptable because it better fits the rule.
So I went to some effort in a previous message to slam newsmedia as a
secondary source. It usually isn't in any meningful way. But the
problem there is the misguided belief that it is, not the preference
for secondary sources.
I don't know how it is outside of the US, but primary education in the
US places news media (and encyclopaedias!) as high quality sources of
digested information. When I first got access to a university library
(along with journals, and specialist reference works) it was a
incredibly eye opening experience for me. I expect that as more
references works become accessible online along with open access
journals people will recognize that newspapers are not usually good
secondary sources and the norms on Wikipedia will change... but that
will take time.
That's an interesting observation. News media and encyclopedias are
easily accessible sources, but the people who depend on them don't even
take the next step of going to popular weeklies like "Time" which at
least goes beyond the immediacy of the daily newspaper. Those who have
used a university library know what you mean, but one can't escape the
fact that the majority does not go to university, and that a significant
proportion of those who do attend a post-secondary institution do their
best to avoid going to the library, and only attend there under severe
duress. Having open access to journals is only a part of the battle;
grokking there importance also needs too be better communicated.
Ec