[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] Aren't recordings original sources?
At 12:44 AM 2008-10-15, Michael Biel wrote:
We've discussed in the past why Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but
I have just come across another reason why we in the recording field
should be outraged. They do not accept a recording or a recording of a
broadcast as a reliable source of information.
There are long explanations on Wikipedia about why they have made
this decision. In fact, it goes against all primary sources. They do
NOT want original thinking on Wikipedia, they want everything to be
verifiable from secondary sources. There are pages of discussion of
this and it makes sense, especially if you read Jim Wales's posts
relating to this. One point that is made is (my paraphrase) we can't
judge the accuracy so we need to settle that we can verify points are
from presumable reliable sources. Secondary sources are journal
articles, university level textbooks, books published by major
publishers. The rationale seems to be the more people checking the
facts, the better.
They make a clear distinction of primary, secondary, and tertiary
sources, and they see themselves as a tertiary source relying on
verifiable secondary sources.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. from
It is an interesting concept and in reading all the material it
appears internally consistent and defensible.
Thanks, Patrick, for pointing me to that.
Richard L. Hess email: richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Aurora, Ontario, Canada (905) 713 6733 1-877-TAPE-FIX
Detailed contact information: http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.