[WikiEN-l] primary and secondary sources

[slimvirgin at gmail.com]

Zero, there's a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:CIte sources
about how that page can be improved. Some editors there feel we should
not distinguish at all between types of sources, but should accept any
citation. Others feel we should distinguish, but disagree as to what
words we ought to use to describe a good source (reputable,
authoritative, credible: all are being discussed). There's a feeling
among some editors that we should discuss the difference between
primary and secondary: others feel we shouldn't get into it. My own
view is that all these issues should be thrashed out on that page,
because if the info isn't there, where else can editors expect to find
it? Any input from you would be much appreciated.

Slim 


On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 02:18:37 -0800 (PST), zero 0000
<nought_0000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Following up on the recent discussion about citation and sources,
> I'd like to make a few points in no particular order.