 |
 |
Salvete! > Sorry, if I misinterpreted the source type, I was doing 1500 things, that was > 1501...my bad I learned from my mistake! > It's about putting something up and having someone else come by and make it better. The aardvark article history example is choice. :) >> I'm the wikimedian who added the templates there in the first place to >> give the newbie author some guidance as to what needed to happen; when >> the newbie editor ran out of steam I appealed for input from here. >> That could have been done in the talk pages. >> Wikipedia is in many ways as structured as cataloguing, but you can get >> away with pretty much everything if you have secondary sources. >> When people turn Wikipedia into cataloguing, it's a huge turn off. I try and convince people who are authorities in their fields to contribute so that the project improves, and the wikibureaucracy comes up a lot. Sometimes self citation is going to happen. I'd rather have that in this case than stand to lose the entire page. The whole page is a resource. >> The fact that anyone on this list thinks that a single-column >> contemporary eye-witness account qualifies as a secondary source >> staggers me. Maybe that makes me a bad actor. >> >> [and yes, the article is still in need of secondary sources] >> I would point you to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_and_secondary_sources "Secondary" is not another way to spell "good" Cheers, Brooke