On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 1:19 AM, Carl Beckhorn cbeckhorn@fastmail.fm wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 01:03:12AM +0000, Carcharoth wrote:
Why not both? Wikipedia requires editorial judgment for some things, but selection of primary sources is one of the more tricky ones, and a secondary source showing that you are not cherry-picking the primary sources is a good safeguard.
I wouldn't cite a source that just says "Thoerem X was very interesting" because such a source is of no interest to someone who is trying to learn more about Theorem X, and because such a source would never be cited in the scientific literature. The point of sources is fundamentally to enable readers to learn more about the topic.
A reader who knows nothing about the material is in no position to worry about whether the sources have been cherry-picked, and has to trust whoever wrote the article. This is true for both secondary and primary sources. There are many discredited secondary sources that no knowledgable writer would use, but which would seem perfectly reasonable to an untrained reader.
Very good point. Some people are too ready to believe secondary sources.
What I was suggesting is that an article with no secondary mentions (of any kind, whatsoever) is probably a good AfD candidate.
Every topic I am intrested in having an article for will some sort of oblique secondary mentions - but I don't consider those to be sources for the article, and would not include them when I add material.
Consider those oblique secondary sources to be "notability sources" to "allow" the use of the primary sources.
I usually only mention the notability sources at an AFD, when someone needs an infusion of clue.
Well, that's your approach, which is fair enough, but it does help to do that beforehand.
Carcharoth