Stan Shebs wrote:
Steve Block wrote:
Stan Shebs wrote:
Steve Block wrote:
Isn't that the very definition of a primary source. Something we seem loathe to allow. We can't state that "these words were used in this document on this date". We can't state that this thing existed at this web address on this date. Sorry, but this is the same thing as providing a citation for a factual claim made in an article. The OED make the claim of a specific usage or first usage, and use web sources to provide the citation.
The difference is that OED editors are experts exercising professional judgement and putting their reputations on the line when they make their assertions.
I thought Wikipedia was an attempt to write an encyclopedia without worrying about professional judgement, that we could add anything and as long as it was written from a neutral point of view and was verifiable it didn't matter.
Well then, how do you verify? How do you know a primary source isn't flat-out lying? Experts write whole monographs on the massive extent of falsification and error in the primary sources for Roman history, for instance; other experts then use that analysis in constructing a plausible narrative of what happened. Our role is as glorified stenographers for all these experts; we summarize their results and withhold judgement on which version is "correct".
How do we know reliable sources aren't lying. Every newspaper and source in town reports Colin Montgomerie holed the winning putt in the 2004 Ryder Cup, but it isn't true, Ian Poulter struck the putt that mathematically won the cup. Monty's story simply made better press. If we do, as you say, withhold judgement on whether a source is correct, why do you then say we can't use some sources because they may be lying. Obviously some judgement is at play.
No, that's your opinion of what Wikipedia does and doesn't want. We have the occasional featured article built on primary source, so the community may not agree.
That's why I didn't say "never use primaries";
Then I misunderstood you when you said "WP *really* doesn't want much to do with primary sources" and I apologise.
I've been working on WP steadily for almost four years now, and if you look at my oldest edits, you'll see many of them (though not all!) including reputable secondary sources, and I did that because I read it on a policy page. So this isn't some kind of new thing.
If all this really is "strange and varying criteria" to you, you really need to stop and consider whether WP is the project you want to be involved with.
Maybe you want to check my edit history before you start chucking such accusations about. If you want to make the apology now I'll accept it in good grace. Just because I happen to disagree with you it doesn't mean you get to impugn my edits, my contributions or my considerations of Wikipedia. Get off the soap box. My first edit was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Helen_Hoyt&diff=prev&oldid... a new article written from scratch and referenced. I have a static ip before anyone pulls that one too.