Wikipedia talk:Identifying and using primary sources: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) |
→Primary / secondary sources in basic science: primary sources still aren't always right |
||
Line 280:
::You are writing abstractly. WAID and I are both explaining to you how the community thinks about these issues - the consensus has existed in the community for a long time, and is broad and deep. You are free to ignore us and to ignore the reasoning behind the consensus that we are explaining to you (and the reasoning makes a great deal of sense in the context of working in Wikipedia, which is not like other places) but you will find that your edits get consistently reverted. If you need to bang your head against the wall for a while, so be it. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 16:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
:::J.S., I fully agree with you that dogmatic application of simplistic rules is bad for Wikipedia. I believe that there are many sensible editors around. I know that we don't always get it right – especially not always on the first try (that's why we have talk pages), especially not when we're busy or distracted (we're all humans) – but I think that people are trying, as best as they can, to [[WP:IAR|do what's best for the encyclopedia, even if that means not dogmatically following The Rules™]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
:
*"The best sources in basic science are peer reviewed research articles"? This is not true. Research articles are too focused. The best sources are broad-audience publications. For "basic science", these are popular publications. If the facts are disputed, it is not basic science. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 16:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
* The fact that JS oversees students who edit is a bad thing, with their approach to WP. See [[User:TüBioc]]. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 18:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
:
:There are many cases in basic science where the primary source is a conference paper, before the actual work is done. Often enough, the facts change by the time the later paper is written. There are some documented examples, but I forget them now. In any case, one still has to be careful with science journal articles. [[User:Gah4|Gah4]] ([[User talk:Gah4|talk]]) 00:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
== Are ancient historians primary or secondary source? ==
| |||