On Dec 31, 2008, at 7:36 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > My counters included an attack on whether an op-ed is really > secondary. And > also an attack on whether a self-review is really primary.
To which my response is that, while a broad clarification of what primary and secondary sources actually are, and a better sense of when they should and shouldn't be used would be lovely, and I would support it whole-heartedly, the dogmatism that dominates discussion of NOR is sufficiently bad that it is difficult to get even the smallest of changes through - little yet something like that. Incidentally, for those who have stayed away from the discussion, newer suggestions include the banning of any use of any source that requires specialist knowledge. This really is how bad our policy formation has gotten - there is a sincere belief that specialist knowledge is actually harmful to Wikipedia. -Phil _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
