I'm not sure where you're looking, but I'm thinking of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PRIMARY, which is indeed clear enough:
"All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Now this (along perhaps with [[WP:OR]] can indeed be a change from how many academics and researchers see their role. But then that's because they're forgetting that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, rather than (say) an academic journal. Take care Jon On Jul 10, 2014, at 9:54 PM, Charles Matthews <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10 July 2014 19:59, Jon Beasley-Murray <[email protected]> wrote: > Jennifer: > > Again, look at Wikipedia's policy on primary sources. The policy is quite > clear. > > Given that it says "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and > these are general rules", I have to disagree. In the abstract, this kind of > comment can be misleading. > > Charles > _______________________________________________ > Education mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education _______________________________________________ Education mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
