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

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

At 11:22 PM 2008-10-15, Steven C. Barr wrote:
> --Thus, it seems, Wikipedia doesn't want anything which can be demonstrably
> PROVEN to be accurate...which might explain its less-than-impressive
> repuation for truth and accuracy...?!

Steven,

Did you study the link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
???

There you will find what I wrote about in a previous post. They are 
TRYING to set rules for good reasons. Whether it always works or not 
is the discussion, but the basis of using only secondary sources that 
have already been vetted as a way to keep un-vetted original thinking 
out of their general reference work.

If nothing else, I'm finding Wikipedia a good place to find better 
sources--especially as more and more articles grow footnote 
references as the founders hoped.

Their approach is increasing the likelihood that the references used 
to craft articles have been peer reviewed. Their point is similar to 
Tom's about triangulation, just quoting original data without 
interpretation can get really confusing and can lead to misleading 
conclusions. Their assumption is if the secondary source makes the 
interpretation and it has been published then it is likely to be 
somewhat mainstream.

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.