4 ms·
I wonder if a blog entry by Roth would have sufficed as a secondary source. It probably would have. They need something to point to after all. It can't just ane
by magpi3 8y ago
I wonder if a blog entry by Roth would have sufficed as a secondary source. It probably would have. They need something to point to after all. It can't just anecdotally be noted that a wikipedia editor received an email from the author.
One solution could be to give people forums on Wikipedia to state their perspectives, which would then become source material for articles. Assuming there is some way to verify their identities, this could be a way for famous people to participate in their wikipedia entries without editing the entries themselves.
- reaperducer 8y ago>It can't just anecdotally be noted that a wikipedia editor received an email from the author. For a work of fiction, it absolutely should. Who knows more about a character in a fictional story than the person who made up the character? Should we purge everything from the record that Douglas Adams ever said about Arthur Dent? If Wikipedia was around in the 1500's, the entry on Shakespeare would be almost entirely based on the published criticism of Christopher Marlowe, and not on what Shakespeare, himself, said about his works. And the world would be much poorer for it.
- OscarCunningham 8y agoWikipedia doesn't object to using information from the subject of a page, the issue is to do with needing a permanent source to give as a reference. I can't just edit someone's Wikipedia page and then claim my edits are correct because they told me in person.
- JdeBP 8y agoYou are conflating "said" with "wrote and got published", which is, as pointed out, a fundamental aspect of the situation.