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&oldiā¦
a new article written from scratch and referenced. I have a static ip
before anyone pulls that one too.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.5/616 - Release Date: 04/01/07 13:34