Yes, primary sources are the most authoritative, but wiki believes otherwise. The downside is that another editor might delete the article if I don't play their game. The best description of wiki poicy is probably <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary,_secondary,_and_tertiary_sources>.
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [[email protected]] on behalf of Pew, Curtis G [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2021 9:36 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Secondary sources for DFP and DFSMS On Aug 11, 2021, at 8:30 AM, Seymour J Metz <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm editing the wikipedia article [[Data Facility Storage Management > Subsystem (MVS)]] and another editor has tagged it as relying too much on > primary sources, e.g., IBM announcement letters, IBM manuals. Can anybody > suggest secondary sources for the dates and features of, e.g., DFDS, DFEF, > DFSMS, HSM, DFSORT, SAM-E? > OK, I gotta ask. How can you rely too much on primary sources? Aren’t they the most authoritative sources? What’s the downside? -- Pew, Curtis G [email protected] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
