Thomas Dalton wrote:
- Sarah points out the following text from WP:NOR : "anyone--without specialist knowledge--who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source."
That seems to be broken. Examples of specialist knowledge which might be required are the ability to read a foreign language and the ability to understand mathematical notation.
Someone who can read music should be able to report from a musical score that it is in E-flat, even though that requires specialist knowledge. What the policy *should* require (somehow) is that anyone who can read music will agree that the score is in E-flat. The fundamental skills of the field should be assumed, and the policy should reflect that, imo.
I agree, that needs to be changed, but I'm not sure what to. We need to define what kind of specialist knowledge is ok, and what isn't. For example, is being able to speak Latin acceptable specialist knowledge to use, basically meaning Latin speakers can translate the primary source in the article? (It's definately preferable to cite a translation, but if there isn't one, it may or may not be ok for a Wikipedian to translate it, we need to decide.)
The development of translations is one of the aims of Wikisource. If we do not allow foreign language references we are cutting off a significant body of information. At one time Latin was the lingua franca of the educated, much as English has assumed that role in modern times. In a broader sense if en:wp does not allow foreign language quotes so too would the other language projects be unable to quote English language sources. The potential result of that boggles the mind. Perhaps we are confusing special knowledge and specialist knowledge. Knowing a foreign language does not imply any specialist knowledge except in matters about the language, not about specialist subjects in that language. Indeed, ordinary speakers of the language may understand an article about physics or music in their own language no better than you understand an article about physics or music in English.
Citing the original is preferable to citing a translation, because the translation only adds a further level of uncertainty. This doesn't help those who don't understand the source language. Perhaps both need to be there so that the reader may compare if he is so willing and able. The person who translated Sherlock Holmes' "last bow" into French as his "dernier coup d'archet" failed to distinguish between the use of a "bow" on stage and in archery. The translation may very well be original.
Ec