3 ms·

Wikipedia most certainly does not disallow citation of all primary scientific research. Wikipedia's rule is against original (ie unpublished) research. https:

by jjk166 5y ago

Wikipedia most certainly does not disallow citation of all primary scientific research. Wikipedia's rule is against original (ie unpublished) research. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research...

ekianjo 5y ago
The citation system is broken since most publications in various fields are pure junk. Having a link to a biased or poorly researched source does not prove anything.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  That's exactly why wikipedia prefers secondary sources. You can 'prove' almost anything by citing junk articles in journals.
s1artibartfast 5y ago
IT looks like you are correct. Unfortunately, I have seen simple reiteration of primary research findings removed with such frequency that there appears to a great amount of confusion on this topic >In science, data is primary, and the first publication of any idea or experimental result is always a primary source. These publications, which may be in peer-reviewed journal articles or in some other form, are often called the primary literature to differentiate them from unpublished sources. >All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  The rule concerning citation of primary sources is that secondary sources are preferred, not that primary sources are forbidden. Unpacking that a little: a reliable secondary source provides interpretation and evaluation. If material in an article is cited to a primary source, then any interpretation and evaluation has to be provided by the wikipedia editor, which amounts to OR. So if all you have is a primary source, the material cited to it is often little more than a quote.

by jjk166 5y ago

ekianjo 5y ago

The citation system is broken since most publications in various fields are pure junk. Having a link to a biased or poorly researched source does not prove anything.

denton-scratch 5y ago
That's exactly why wikipedia prefers secondary sources. You can 'prove' almost anything by citing junk articles in journals.

s1artibartfast 5y ago

IT looks like you are correct. Unfortunately, I have seen simple reiteration of primary research findings removed with such frequency that there appears to a great amount of confusion on this topic >In science, data is primary, and the first publication of any idea or experimental result is always a primary source. These publications, which may be in peer-reviewed journal articles or in some other form, are often called the primary literature to differentiate them from unpublished sources. >All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

denton-scratch 5y ago
The rule concerning citation of primary sources is that secondary sources are preferred, not that primary sources are forbidden. Unpacking that a little: a reliable secondary source provides interpretation and evaluation. If material in an article is cited to a primary source, then any interpretation and evaluation has to be provided by the wikipedia editor, which amounts to OR. So if all you have is a primary source, the material cited to it is often little more than a quote.