4 ms·
The Factbook dates from a time when this was the most convenient source of updated concise summaries of all countries. It didn’t necessarily go into great detai
by Isamu 8mo ago
The Factbook dates from a time when this was the most convenient source of updated concise summaries of all countries. It didn’t necessarily go into great detail except for countries important to the US national interest.
This has been eclipsed by Wikipedia, the information there is far more comprehensive and govt officials will go there to make updates and corrections.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- Antibabelic 8mo agoWhere do you think the information on Wikipedia comes from? Not that Wikipedia strongly relies on The World Factbook, but it can't exist without other secondary sources like these.
- notRobot 8mo agoWikipedia is actually the secondary source when someone reads a page on it, and it requires primary sources (like factbooks) to cite to exist.
- Antibabelic 8mo agoThis is incorrect. Wikipedia relies primarily on secondary sources, which makes it a tertiary source, and it describes itself this way.[1] The World Factbook does not collect the information it provides, making it a secondary source. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PSTS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PSTS
- FrustratedMonky 8mo agoIt can be both. It uses Primary and Secondary sources. That is why you check the references and use them appropriately.
- TheCoelacanth 8mo ago> Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary 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. Primary sources aren't completely disallowed, but they are definitely discouraged.
- FrustratedMonky 8mo agoSo, not, not allowed. "The concept of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources originated with the academic discipline of historiography. The point was to give historians a handy way to indicate how close the source of a piece of information was to the actual events.[a] Importantly, the concept developed to deal with "events", rather than ideas or abstract concepts. A primary source was a source that was created at about the same time as the event, regardless of the source's contents. So while a dictionary is an example of a tertiary source, an ancient dictionary is actually a primary source—for the meanings of words in the ancient world." "All sources are primary for something Every source is the primary source for something, whether it be the name of the author, its title, its date of publication, and so forth. For example, no matter what kind of book it is, the copyright page inside the front of a book is a primary source for the date of the book's publication. Even if the book would normally be considered a secondary source, if the statement that you are using this source to support is the date of its own publication, then you are using that book as a primary source." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_usin...
- Antibabelic 8mo agoI'd be interested to see how these quotes show that primary sources are not allowed on Wikipedia.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- Loughla 8mo agoThe problem is who checks the sources. Of the what billions of sources, how many have actually been verified?
- lazide 8mo agoAlso, when there are conflicts, who decides what the ‘facts’ are, eh? is is the Gulf of America or not?
- hk__2 8mo agoNobody, you just mention the different points of view that are in the sources.
- lazide 8mo agoWhich nobody does (really) because it turns into a giant narcissist shit fight then for who can come up with the most absurd ‘truthy’ answer for publicity. Everyone has to end up filtering at some point or it’s all just noise.
- philipwhiuk 8mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Mexico_naming_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Mexico_naming_controve... There's an entire article on it.
- lazide 8mo agoNow imagine that for toilet paper over the top, or over the bottom, or sitting on top of the toilet tank. And everything in between. We have plenty of bits, at least.
- philipwhiuk 8mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_paper_orientation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_paper_orientation Drowning beneath your inability to Google.
- SanjayMehta 8mo agoWikipedia does not allow primary sources.
- NetMageSCW 8mo agoWhich is often stupid when the only people who know the truth are the people who were there. Hearsay from secondary sources is not an improvement in that case. That’s why I used to like Quora - you would often see an answer provided by the primary (and only definitive) source for questions.
- Antibabelic 8mo agoThis is very much false, Primary sources only play a supporting role on Wikipedia, but they are definitely allowed. For example, if you're writing an article on Apple you can cite Apple for what Wikipedia calls "uncontroversial self-description". However, before that, you have to establish the notability of Apple through reliable secondary independent sources. The contents and focus of articles is also dictated by secondary sources. For example, if you take a controversial subject like Urbit, the article would have to reflect the priorities of (mostly critical) journalistic pieces on Urbit. You can cite its documentation for a technical description (that would be "uncontroversial self-description", as I mentioned before), but this would have to be a small part of the article, because it wouldn't reflect the focus of secondary sources.
- tokai 8mo agoEncyclopedias are by definition tertiary sources.
- wongarsu 8mo agoMost countries have some kind of statistics department that publishes that kind of data in great detail. The issues start when you try to compare data, because different sources will use different methodologies
- pseudalopex 8mo agoAnd some methodologies use false information.
- nikanj 8mo agoThe Factbook dates from a time when facts mattered
- 837263292029 8mo ago> govt officials will go there to make updates and corrections That's one way of putting it.
- alex1138 8mo agoCan we please, please not outsource everything to Wikipedia? Many of the editors there are hardly impartial
- hk__2 8mo agoAnd the CIA is impartial? ;)
- alex1138 8mo agoDo please take note of the fact that I did not include "We should trust the CIA" in my comment
- hk__2 8mo agoNo, but you seemed to imply there are people that aren’t partial. Wikipedia is designed to approach impartiality even if its editors are people like you and me who are far from impartial. Are there better alternatives out there?
- alex1138 8mo agoWikipedia is incredibly weaponized. I meant what I said