> > And this is what I meant about misunderstanding policies. Because nothing > in our policies precludes the use of primary sources. What you can't do > is > use them for interpretation or analysis. So to make up an example; if you > have an oral citation from someone who was arrested under an oppressive > regime - and questioned at length on his choice of blonde hair color and > whether he dyed it. You could relate that experience, but you > couldn't necessarily say something like "The regime persecuted people > with > blond hair, or those who dyed it". > > So if there are oral recordings of at the Smithsonian & Yale (surely that > means they are published?? It certainly fits our explicit criteria for > published) then we can and should be using them. > > One example of published primary sources we do use is court proceedings. > > Tom
Interesting because in the Haymarket case there is a 3,000 page transcript of the trial on line. I thought we could not use it directly. What can we use it for? Can it be used as a reference for itself, in the sense that the fact that there was a lengthy hearing with a great number of prosecution witnesses being heard, as well as many defense witness? >From Identifying reliable sources: Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Fred _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
