In a message dated 10/6/2008 10:01:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time, toddmallen@gmail.com writes:
"If these are really important enough to be in the article, why hasn't any other source reported on them besides you?" I think our content policies still do quite well at preventing character assassination or dirt digging here, but we should be careful not to exclude well-sourced information while prohibiting such practices.
----------------- Sure that was *an* attempt to scuttle research in primary sources. But after much back-and-forth, we finally settled on a characterization that allows both secondary and primary sources. This is especially true in the case where a particular subject has been opened up by a secondary source. So as an example:
Brad Pitt paid well over five million dollars for his house (People, "Brad Pitt Interview", 8 Apr 2003) County records show that he paid 5.4 millions (Land Records Office, Los Angeles County, Reel 52, page 203).
The issue where a primary source does not "clarify or add to" but rather contradicts a secondary source is a bit more touchy of course. In that case, we at Wikipedia, do the exact opposite of what source-based researchers do. That is, we ignore the primary source contradiction, and allow the secondary source statement without comment :)
Typically in source-based research, like biographies, you would do the exact opposite. But hey, I can live with it.
Will Johnson
**************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out! (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000001)