On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 07:07:37PM -0500, [email protected] wrote: > Our policy was fashioned in a deliberate way to prevent the use of primary > sources where there is no secondary source mention. > That was deliberate.
We have always permitted the use of academic research articles published in peer-reviewed journals. These are crucial both for the results they contain and for their link to the historical record. The difficulty is that these sources have to be considered "secondary sources" in order to mesh our best practices with the literal wording of NOR. But many people like to consider them "primary sources". The idea that these sources should be avoided entirely would simply be silly. The idea that it's better to avoid primary sources entirely is more applicable when "primary source" means "blog post". But as long as we try to treat * Inventiones Mathematicae * Being and Time * drudgereport.com as the same type of "primary source", we're doomed to an incoherent policy. - Carl _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
