Re: [ARSCLIST] Aren't recordings original sources?

["Richard L. Hess" <arclists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.

Hello, Michael,

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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

It is an interesting concept and in reading all the material it 
appears internally consistent and defensible.

Thanks, Patrick, for pointing me to that.

Cheers,

Richard


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.