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@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.