3 ms·
I thought Wikipedia loved secondary sources? Like articles about something, as opposed to a primary source which would be like a person who was present or somet
by easton 3y ago
I thought Wikipedia loved secondary sources? Like articles about something, as opposed to a primary source which would be like a person who was present or something (which would mean it’s original research).
An article that says Abraham Lincoln wrote the emancipation proclamation would be preferred to Abraham Lincoln himself being asked and then the Wikipedia article citing “my interview with Abe”.
(Your general point is valid, I’m just confused about the terminology)
- retrac 3y agoIn the historical sense, a primary source comes from the time period under study. A secondary source is later, and interprets, or records, later impressions/recollections of the period in question. So for example, a newspaper article from the 1890s is a primary source about the late 19th century, even if the author had no direct knowledge of the topic about which they were writing.