Personally I feel this was a mistake, as that phrase went to the heart of this policy. Unfortunately, at the same time the key phrase "Wikipedia is not a primary source" was removed (with [ this edit). In March of 2005 - a definition was added (and, to help clarify further, a definition of what a secondary source is was also added).However, it was felt that editors might not understand what was meant by the term "primary source", so. This idea (that Wikipedia should not itself be a primary source) was directly tied to the concept of Original Research. (added with this edit) This remained stable in the policy for just over a year. Starting in Feb 2004 the entirety of the discussion of source types in the NOR policy consisted of one line: "Wikipedia is not a primary source".75.47.156.35 ( talk) 18:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Reply Īt this point, it will probably be instructive to look at the history of the PSTS section, and see how it developed to be the way it did. An already existing sentence in the previous section sufficiently and appropriately states the relevant NOR concept, “Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source.” The questionable section should be moved to another page and there should be a link to it. but this shows that all the detailed definitions of the various types of sources are not on topic (since for the purposes of OR, the distinctions turn out to be pretty much irrelevant).- Kotniski ( talk) 15:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Reply One example is the section Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Blueboar ( talk) 15:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Reply All right, that much is on topic. it just takes a long time to get around to the topic ("don't use primary/secondary/tertiary sources to support OR"). ![]() That's largely the same point I'm making in the thread above this.- Kotniski ( talk) 14:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Reply The section on sources is not off topic. Please be bold in deleting them.ħ5.47.156.35 ( talk) 13:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Reply Could you be a bit more specific about which portions of this policy you feel are off topic? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 14:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Reply Not wishing to speak for the IP, but we did discuss this not long ago, and people seemed to agree that (if this page is to remain separate from V) then the detailed section about sources is off-topic, and we should confine ourselves here to saying what is and what isn't original research. Due to the way in which Wikipedia has grown, many articles contain such redundant texts. If you provide a link to the other article, readers who are interested in the side topic have the option of digging into it, but readers who are not interested will not be distracted by it. If you find yourself wandering off-topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with the topic. While writing an article, you might find yourself digressing into a side subject. The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |