[WikiEN-l] Next experiment: switch off AFD for a month. (was Guardian in defense of Wikipedia)

Tue Dec 13 17:43:06 UTC 2005

On 12/13/05, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
> I wonder how many people hold off adding references because they're
> hoping for a better source. For instance, I used to not mention
> using Oxford Classical Dictionary, because it's technically a
> tertiary source, but many of its articles mention only primary
> sources, leaving no secondaries to cite. Nowadays I just cite it
> anyway - if somebody has something better later, they can replace
> the OCD cite.

Exactly the result I feared when people started to press not only for
sources, but only sources that fit certain criteria.  I argued then
that even a poor source is better than none, because it traces where
the information came from and allows people familiar with the subject
to dig deeper.

I also believe we should cite primary, secondary or tertiary sources,
whichever is available.  In the case of primary sources, of course,
these should only be readily available ones.  Ideally, an encyclopedia
is a tertiary source - a summing-up of knowledgable opinion - but I
would not exclude primary or tertiary sources unless better are
available.

-Matt