4 ms·
Wikipedia has explicitly adopted the opposite policy, and they didn't do so arbitrarily. In specific cases it might seem stupid, but I think in general it make
by starwed 15y ago
Wikipedia has explicitly adopted the opposite policy, and they didn't do so arbitrarily.
In specific cases it might seem stupid, but I think in general it makes sense. It goes hand in hand with the "no original research" policy.
(Like everything in wikipedia that policy can be misapplied by small minded people, though.)
- CPlatypus 15y agoThe "no original research" policy is fine when it prevents self-citation, but when it prevents citation of little-read but thoroughly credible third-party sources such as court transcripts that's a different matter.
- tptacek 15y agoNo, it's really not. The proper venue for interpretation of little-read primary sources like court transcripts is a book or journal article, not an encyclopedia.
- CPlatypus 15y agoNobody's talking about interpretation. I was referring to mere verification that the source exists and says what it's claimed to. That can and should happen in an encyclopedia.
- tptacek 15y agoThat's not what he did. He synthesized from the primary sources text that contradicted the majority of all published sources on the incident, including what was up until then the most authoritative source. That obviously should not be happening in an encyclopedia. But let's be careful about wording. It obviously shouldn't happen in an encyclopedia. But it obviously should be happening. And it did. He went on to write an authoritative secondary source and the article is sure to reflect it.