On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 8:11 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Carl Beckhorn cbeckhorn@fastmail.fm wrote:
[...] But as long as we try to treat
- Inventiones Mathematicae
- Being and Time
- drudgereport.com
as the same type of "primary source", we're doomed to an incoherent policy.
Perhaps it is time to simply separate out RS into domain-specific subpolicies that acknowledge this, and avoid the whole problem for everything not in the humanities...
RS as a very high level guideline, with RS-SCIENCE and RS-MEDIA and RS-BIOGRAPHY and RS-PHILOSOPHY as subpolicies as applicable, etc...
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yes, because subguidelines haven't been a train wreck for things like notability, and led to total incoherency where one main guideline would serve far better, or...
Oh, wait.
Using primary sources as described, for purely descriptive claims, is not a problem. Rather, treat the criticism itself with the weight it deserves as well. If no other reliable sources have seen fit to comment on the criticism (be that to agree with it, refute it, what have you), it's not that important and doesn't deserve much weight. Same with any refutation of the criticism from its target. We can very easily state "A states B is wrong because C. B denies this because D." That's not an inappropriate use of a primary source.