QUOTE(guy @ Sun 23rd December 2007, 8:41am)
So it's now impermissible to base anything on primary sources, however reliable?
That has been the fundamental debate for the last 6 months on WP:NOR: essentially moving policy from Wikipedia is not a primary source, to being Wikipedia cannot use primary sources. Slim snuck this principle in a while back and the cabal is now holding it in place arguing that it has been part of policy for a long time (fingers in ears; la, la, la; we're not listening to any arguments; fuck off, trolls).
Those who want common sense in policy note that if someone says something in a primary source (whatever that might be, there is not even agreement there), then for an editor to use it, it is not original. and therefore the whole source typing argument raging is an irrelevance.
My take is that SV wants to put journalism above other sources. This in part is based on the fallacy that newspaper writing is a process that is about ensuring accuracy, the assumption that editors in papers are the equivalent to the "many eyes" of Wikipedia. It is a common technique of hers to argue that content cannot be included because, and only because, it is from a primary source. The most insidious part of her argument is that she argues that the quality of the source alters depending on perspective - a high quality secondary source might become a primary source. For example, if there is an aircraft accident investigation, the report on the incident by the authorities are high quality resources, debated with care, presenting a rigorous case. However, if we start debating whether the investigation was sound, this report becomes inadmissible for Wikipedia as it is a primary source with respect to the investigation. She would argue that if a newspaper made comments on the report, then it could be used, but an editor, as a commentator, could not use the report at all, even to refute a misrepresentation by a newspaper as that use would be introducing original thought of the editor.
This is what SlimVirgin calls source-based research, where you Google around a bit, gather lots of
newspaper clippingssecondary source material and assume that you therefore know your subject.
All editors of Wikipedia are expected to be able to demonstrate absolute ignorance of their chosen topic or else they clearly will be influenced by their own opinions.
The refutation of incorrect analysis by journalists becomes one of the most contentious issues with this sourcing view in NOR, in that you can have actual facts from impeccable sources to show that the Wikipedia article is misleading, but Wikilawyering will claim that you have to put distorted secondary sourced verification over truth.
This post has been edited by dogbiscuit: Sun 23rd December 2007, 11:35am
Blank-In Protest : Writers' Strike Roster, Dynamic Pages Documenting Articles To Be Struck
Jonny Cache Blank-In Protest : Writers' Strike Roster Wed 12th December 2007, 1:37pm
Wed 12th December 2007, 1:37pm
