[WikiEN-l] primary and secondary sources

[Matt Brown]

> I strongly disagree.  The only cites should be good cites.  Bad ones are
> misleading and wasteful.  A good cite is easy enough to make: one that
> accurately describes the cited material and relates it to the subjectmatter.  

Maybe I need to state what I meant better; citations should be good
BUT one should cite references to one's sources even when those
sources are not necessarily the best.

I think there are two separate things being discussed here, which are
being confused together (by me at least, and thus I assume probably
others).

One, the quality of the citation.  This is what you described above. 
In other words, it identifies the source accurately, gives enough
information to find the needed information easily, and documents its
relation to the subject matter truthfully and accurately.  This has
nothing to do with the actual nature or quality of the source
material.  A high quality of citation is essential.

Two, the quality of the actual source material.  This is a quite
different matter, and contains much more subjectivity and scope for
argument (not to say there isn't any in the previous).  One can have
good cites for bad sources, and bad cites for good sources.

What I really meant in the previous post Tony replied to is that one
should always give good cites for one's sources -- even sources not of
the highest quality, accuracy etc.  A good cite for a bad source beats
a bad cite for a bad source, or no cite at all.  At least the article
is properly referencing and characterising its sources, and is
therefore much more transparent.

Bad cites are an insiduous poison in that they claim authority but
lack it, and are deceptive.  Bad sources are easier to fix or at least
identify.

Sometimes one is forced to rely on poor sources while an article is
still in development, while one is searching for more authoritative
reference material.  On some subjects there are no good sources at
all; all are unreliable or incomplete.  In these cases, it's best for
the conscientous contributor to use what sources are available, cite
them meticulously, mention the problems in the article if it can be
done in a NPOV way, and certainly document the problem on the talk
page for future editors to read.

I hope this clarifies things.

-Matt