On Fri, 2 Oct 2009, Rob wrote: > The fact that original secondary sources were wrong in this case is > immaterial. Errors in secondary sources should be a reason to dig up > more secondary sources, not to make a point using primary ones.
Wikipedia is already full of places where people are required to jump through hoops merely because that's what the rules require, even if it doesn't actually help. This is another one. Searching far and wide to find a secondary source that quoted the primary source gains you *nothing* except compliance with Wikipedia rules. The secondary source isn't going to do any better fact-checking than you did when you just looked at the primary source directly--it just fills a rules requirement. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
