[WikiEN-l] primary and secondary sources

[Ray Saintonge]

Tony Sidaway wrote:

>Matt Brown said:
>  
>
>>It is definitely the case that we'd rather a bad cite than no cite.
>>    
>>
>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.  This latest fuss was, at bottom, over attempts by some of us to
>transform a bad cite (a statement that a UN source said something that we
>didn't know it said) into a good one (a statement that a secondary source
>gave a figure and attributed it to a UN source).  The former would have
>misled the reader, the latter would have given the reader more accurate
>information.  As it turned out the cited UN source did not contain the
>information, but another UN source did.  The secondary source proved to be
>in error so the inference drawn from it was incorrect in a small but
>significant detail.
>  
>
I would be more supportive of Matt's position.  When you try to divide 
citations into "good cites" and "bad cites" you make a determination 
which should also be subject to the "cite your sources" rule.  Rather 
than proposing that one source or the other would have misled the 
reader, we would do better in such circumstances to cite both sources, 
and let the reader decide which misleading he prefers to follow.

Ec