I've been struggling with this a bit myself. I have to disagree with MacGyver, I think primary sources definitely play a role in good encyclopedic writing. For instance, the use of quotes from a published play could easily be useful in an article about that play. In this case the primary source would be easily verifiable and useful, so it's complex.
I try to only use primary sources to back up opinions found in secondary sources. Don't use a bunch of primary sources to come to a conclusion which is not supported in your secondary sources, since this definitely becomes original research. An example of where I've tried to do this is in [[Hymn to St. Cecilia]], where I quote from /published/ primary source material to support views expressed in other secondary sources. Makemi
On 3/17/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Primary sources are hard if not impossible to verify. Don't use them.
Mgm
On 3/17/06, Jonathan dzonatas@dzonux.net wrote:
Hello,
If someone uses a primary source, should the context be quoted directly? If it is not, would that constitute original research? Another words, if someone takes the primary source and interprets it to his or her own need, it does seem like a re-creation of a primary source. It's like original research in an attempt to make the primary source a secondary source.
I've seen this kind of discussion before. The result was that all scholarly work is always based on secondary scholastic sources. That does not give an answer to the primary sources as above, but it does shed some insight into non-scholarly source creep.
Feedback is appreciated.
Jonathan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l