But, we do not *want* primary sources to be summarized unless they have already been commented upon in secondary sources. That *is* the point. So that seems to be working fine.
************** New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
But, we do not *want* primary sources to be summarized unless they have already been commented upon in secondary sources.
"Summarizing" isn't the same thing as "commented on", so this is a non-sequitur.
On Jan 2, 2009, at 4:18 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
But, we do not *want* primary sources to be summarized unless they have already been commented upon in secondary sources.
Well, but that's not strictly speaking true. I mean, secondary sources, like any sources, are published for commercial reasons. What is commercial and what is important do not correspond perfectly. Primary sources matter.
The issue is that we want to be very, very careful in how we summarize and use primary sources. But their use, generally speaking, is more or less a fact of life.
-Phil