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

Thu Dec 15 08:35:55 UTC 2005

Matt Brown wrote:

>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.
>
I absolutely agree.  Once you start imposing serious limitations on the 
acceptability of sources you set up the basis for many future arguments 
of the "my source is better than yours" variety.  We need to encourage 
people to use what they have, without worrying about strict criteria.

Ec