[Table of Contents]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

I still don't trust anything on Whacky-Packia unless I can verify it with a more reliable source. "More reliable" would admittedly be up to my own judgement, but lots of references so I can check the sources from which a Whacky article is written are a good start. BTW, this is why I like footnotes and references. It's good to check full versions of things quoted, to see if the quote was taken out of context. One has to be a _very_ discerning consumer of media these days since there is so much BS being amplified on the web and so many people with so many axes to grind suddenly given the power to publish. I'm not against the democracy of it all, I just think people need to wade into the swamp with eyes wide open and brains on full BS-filter mode.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard L. Hess" <arclists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 6:01 PM
Subject: 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.

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

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.

[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents]