If Wikipedia decides to ban primary source citing, here's what will happen:
* Numerous articles will be removed of featured, A-class, or GA status. * Wikipedia's coverage and material will be significantly limited. * A lot of good work will be removed (ruined). * Numerous editors will leave Wikipedia because their chance of writing featured articles, especially on popular culture and many other subjects, will be gone. Not to mention the fact that their hard work is being removed.
Plus, stating the facts of primary sources - like citing a script example that Darth Vader is killed at the end of Return of the Jedi, or citing an interview with a developer when stating that he was influenced by Japanese paintings - are not the same as OR.
************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
On 3/20/07, SonOfYoungwood@aol.com SonOfYoungwood@aol.com wrote:
If Wikipedia decides to ban primary source citing, here's what will happen:
- Numerous articles will be removed of featured, A-class, or GA status.
- Wikipedia's coverage and material will be significantly limited.
- A lot of good work will be removed (ruined).
- Numerous editors will leave Wikipedia because their chance of writing
featured articles, especially on popular culture and many other subjects, will be gone. Not to mention the fact that their hard work is being removed.
Plus, stating the facts of primary sources - like citing a script example that Darth Vader is killed at the end of Return of the Jedi, or citing an interview with a developer when stating that he was influenced by Japanese paintings - are not the same as OR.
At WP:ATT he has said the the issue was not the use of primary sources, but the generation of novel conclusions based on the sources. Of course, that totally contradicts his original posting, where he says that the material should not be reintroduced unless it is supported by secondary sources. In addition, as far as I can tell, the material fairly reflects the sources in the article, and no attempt was made to explain how it is that the material did not.
So now it would appear that OR has not been redefined, except where it has. It's ok to use primary sources, but information supported by primary sources cannot be reinserted into an article unless it is supported by secodnary sources? Maybe that's what's being said? Who knows. But be careful, because if you do use primary sources, Jimbo may call you a POV-pusher holding Wikipedia hostage.
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:50:28 -0600, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
At WP:ATT he has said the the issue was not the use of primary sources, but the generation of novel conclusions based on the sources. Of course, that totally contradicts his original posting, where he says that the material should not be reintroduced unless it is supported by secondary sources. In addition, as far as I can tell, the material fairly reflects the sources in the article, and no attempt was made to explain how it is that the material did not.
Um. What I see here is a statement that selectively reporting directly from primary sources is Bad, whereas reporting what the secondary sources report as the balance of opinion is fine; I don't see it as a prohibition on sourcing quotes from the primary source, only on distilling the article /directly/ from that source without the filter of independent discussions.
This is precisely the kind of problem that led to the recent Barrett v. Rosenthal arbitration case, in fact.
Guy (JzG)
Guettarda wrote:
At WP:ATT he has said the the issue was not the use of primary sources, but the generation of novel conclusions based on the sources. Of course, that totally contradicts his original posting, where he says that the material should not be reintroduced unless it is supported by secondary sources.
That is not a contradiction at all. If you can produce a source which tells us that this obscure lawsuit was important, and which echoes your original research and analysis into what happened, then re-insert it with appropriate sourcing. In the meantime the reliance on your own original historical research is problematic, and you should not reintroduce it until you have a secondary source.
--Jimbo
On 20/03/07, SonOfYoungwood@aol.com SonOfYoungwood@aol.com wrote:
Plus, stating the facts of primary sources - like citing a script example that Darth Vader is killed at the end of Return of the Jedi, or citing an interview with a developer when stating that he was influenced by Japanese paintings - are not the same as OR.
I had always been under the impression that the point of WP:NOR was to eliminate the adding of material to the encyclopaedia on the grounds that "I know it's true from my own experience".
On 20/03/07, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
At WP:ATT he has said the the issue was not the use of primary sources, but the generation of novel conclusions based on the sources.
That would be a violation of WP:SYNT, which I think after examining the source (it's not totally clear from the page WP:ATT itself) is a subdivision of WP:NOR.
On 20/03/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
I had always been under the impression that the point of WP:NOR was to eliminate the adding of material to the encyclopaedia on the grounds that "I know it's true from my own experience".
No, the point was to eliminate adding novel theories.
- d.