On Apr 2, 2007, at 10:56 AM, John Lee wrote:
On 4/2/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 2, 2007, at 9:38 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 06:18:49 -0700, "Seraphim Blade" seraphimbladewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Generally, "being right" is not a defense to NOR. NOR helps to preserve relevance and importance of information as well as correctness of it. If no one else has seen fit to investigate this matter or publish that conclusion, why should we be the first? If the guy's that concerned, tell him to suggest the story to a newspaper. If the paper decides it's correct and important enough to publish, there's the source!
I completely agree.
I completely disagree.
Straightforward interpretation of primary sources is not original research. It never has been, and it needs to remain that way because of the number of notable articles about which there are not good or usable comprehensive secondary sources.
-Phil
We're a tertiary source. If we go about the business of citing primary sources when there are no extant secondary sources, we've deviated from our purpose as an encyclopaedia.
Yes, but no prior encyclopedia has had the onerous requirement of sourcing every statement either. They generally were content to pay experts some money and get tertiary sources. This is possible because the expert can fill in the holes and gaps between the secondary sources with their own judgment and knowledge, which is itself, functionally, a secondary source.
We've abandoned the experts-write-articles method. We can't fetishize sources at the same time.
-Phil