On 9 September 2012 11:02, George Herbert <[email protected]> wrote:
> Even within the community, we still have primary / secondary / tertiary > source and verifiability standards confusion. > > Good point. Saying "secondary sources" like a mantra seems to have failed us here (and is the one point of failure I can identify in the whole business). The way the article was left by 20 August seems to have been exemplary given the sources then available. If academia is interested in WP's role in this, it should note that a misconception about a major work has been dispelled by WP's pickiness. For academics "personal communication" is indeed sometimes an acceptable way to annotate a citation. But for this type of issue an open letter to the New Yorker is surely better all round. Charles _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
