[WikiEN-l] Original research or common sense inferral?

[Phil Sandifer]

On Apr 2, 2007, at 10:56 AM, John Lee wrote:

> On 4/2/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 2, 2007, at 9:38 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 06:18:49 -0700, "Seraphim Blade"
>>> <seraphimbladewikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Generally, "being right" is not a defense to NOR. NOR helps to
>>>> preserve relevance and importance of information as well as
>>>> correctness of it. If no one else has seen fit to investigate this
>>>> matter or publish that conclusion, why should we be the first?  
>>>> If the
>>>> guy's that concerned, tell him to suggest the story to a
>>>> newspaper. If
>>>> the paper decides it's correct and important enough to publish,
>>>> there's the source!
>>>
>>> I completely agree.
>>
>> I completely disagree.
>>
>> Straightforward interpretation of primary sources is not original
>> research. It never has been, and it needs to remain that way because
>> of the number of notable articles about which there are not good or
>> usable comprehensive secondary sources.
>>
>> -Phil
>
>
> We're a tertiary source. If we go about the business of citing primary
> sources when there are no extant secondary sources, we've deviated  
> from our
> purpose as an encyclopaedia.

Yes, but no prior encyclopedia has had the onerous requirement of  
sourcing every statement either. They generally were content to pay  
experts some money and get tertiary sources. This is possible because  
the expert can fill in the holes and gaps between the secondary  
sources with their own judgment and knowledge, which is itself,  
functionally, a secondary source.

We've abandoned the experts-write-articles method. We can't fetishize  
sources at the same time.

-Phil