[WikiEN-l] Primary sources

Mon Jan 5 23:53:14 UTC 2004

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jimmy Wales" <jwales at bomis.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Primary sources (was: Clearer policy on
self-writtenand obscure biographies)

> Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> > How can you say that Wikipedia is not a primary source?
>
> [...]
>
> > I want Wikipedia to become MORE authoritative, not less.
>
> The best way for Wikipedia to become more authoritative is to
> steadfastly refuse to be a primary source.  A primary source isn't
> primary because it's authoritative, it's primary because it is the
> first or original source for something.  Primary sources can be
> unreliable, reliable, biased, whatever.
>
> There's no shame in being a secondary source, and secondary sources is
> where the authority business gets really strong and interesting.  :-)
>
> For us, as a social culture, avoiding the idea of being a primary
> source helps us to resolve some otherwise impossible dilemmas.  Do we
> publish quack physics theories?  No, because we are not a place for
> original research.
>
> --Jimbo

One point of view (Ed's) could be seen as thesis, the other (Jimbo's et.al.)
as antithesis.

We might be ready for the synthesis: Wikipedia (just like any printed
encyclopaedia) is not the place to publish one's original research. But it
certainly does not do any harm (rather the opposite I'd guess) if people who
in real life carry out research themselves also contribute to Wikipedia
about topics related to their own field: They are usually educated,
principled, intellectual, and trying not to appear biased, and I think
Wikipedia should try to attract them.

Kurt (aka KF)