Wikipedia talk:Identifying and using primary sources: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) Archiving |
WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 180:
The other university library pages' text has also been heavily copied-and-pasted across other university libraries, but it's hard to tell which was the original since most are are unsigned. Only the last page given (University of Michigan) lists its author, a graduate student. Basically, the whole thing is a mess, but at the very least the plagiarized ones need to go. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 02:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
:The problem to be solved is editors sincerely and genuinely believing that everything in a newspaper is a secondary source. This may happen because [[Telephone game|another editor told them that]], because they started editing back when [[WP:PSTS]] said that anything "secondhand" was secondary (and a you reading a newspaper article written by a journalist who interviewed an eyewitness might seem like secondhand content), or because they didn't realize that ''secondary'' isn't just wikijargon for "reliable source".
:What's on the page now does not violate our [[Wikipedia:Plagiarism]] guideline (because ''we'' gave credit to our source, even if the source might not have), and your analysis may be incorrect anyway. For example, you assume that the universities unfairly copied a hypothetical original document without giving proper credit, but it could be properly licensed text from a content service.
:The distinction between what a source "is" and how an editor "should use" it is real, but perhaps too complex for this page. We're still working on the basics, like whether a newspaper article on the big game last weekend is a primary or secondary source. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
| |||