On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 8:11 PM, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Carl Beckhorn
<cbeckhorn(a)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(a)gmail.com
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)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.
--
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.