[WikiEN-l] Low citation quality in BLP articles

[WJhonson at aol.com]

<<In a message dated 1/7/2009 4:30:53 PM Pacific Standard Time,  
cbeckhorn at fastmail.fm writes:

*  Building the majority of an article from newspaper sources is not
a  reliability problem at the level of the individually-sourced
pieces  of information. However, it's exactly the type of synthesis 
of  primary sources that has been decried for academic articles.
And, in  many cases, it suffers from the bias of newsmedia to
cover things  that will sell papers in much greater depth than
topics that are of  less popular interest. >>


As I've been pointing out, in bits and pieces, we don't have an alternative  
for BLPs.
There simply is not some highly regarded, repository of veracity out there  
for this type of article.
What we have is reliable secondary sources, and realiable primary source,  
which should and can be used in conjunction in a proper mix.
 
I don't agree that newspaper articles are necessarily primary  sources.  If 
in a new story about Jane Fonda, they happen to mention that  her father Henry 
was in such and such movie, that's not a primary source for  that fact.  It's 
obviously secondary.  Just the fact that something  appears in a newspaper or 
news magazine does not make it a primary source for  that something.
 
The primary source is the first fixed-media product which has stated that  
fact.  The primary sources for Henry Fonda having been born in Omaha is *a*  
newspaper story, but subsequent mentions of that fact are not again primary,  
they are secondary.  Apparently relying on previously published  biographical 
details.
 
A report on Peter Fonda's arrest may rely on the underlying published  
primary sources of his court papers.  They may rely on an interview with  him, which 
may or may be published.  They may rely on some reporter,  watching a filmed 
interview of him on the Tomorrow show.  We don't  necessarily know from just 
reading the newspaper whether they are reporting  something as a primary source 
or secondary, unless they clearly state or infer  that somehow.  Such as, "I 
ask him blah blah blah and he said blah blah  blee"
 
That would make it primary.
Jane Fonda's memoir is primary for what she herself experienced.  But  she 
says "I read in my father's biography where he said blah blah blah".   Her 
repeating it and commenting upon it, does not make it again primary  (provided it 
was in the first place).  It makes it secondary.
 
Again, primary statements in sources, are those which are appearing in a  
fixed media for the first time.
 
Will Johnson
 
 
 
**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)