[WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research
arromdee at rahul.net
Sat Oct 3 16:00:25 UTC 2009
On Fri, 2 Oct 2009, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>No it's not. If the you've understood a rule as some formality that
>you must comply with when it clearly does not help you've
That's how rules actually work in Wikipedia. Ignoring a rule--especially a
rule about sourcing--is going to get you pounced upon by rule mongers. And
in a dispute, the rule mongers are always right. It doesn't matter if the
rule actually does any good.
You're talking about an ideal Wikipedia and I'm talking about the one we're
>A decent secondary source, written by people familiar
>with the limitations of the primary material and with consideration of
>the available data and scholarship, is that sanity checking.
In that case, it's not a (decent) secondary source at all, and the initial
idea--that there are no secondary sources--was correct.
The idea that a newspaper article that quotes the date from the primary
source is going to do any more sanity checking than you would... isn't true.
It's a legal fiction, or we might say, a rules fiction. We pretend that the
source will do more checking... but we're just pretending, because we have
a rule which says "secondary sources are better because they check things",
and the rule has to be true.
More information about the WikiEN-l