Wikipedia actually much prefers secondary and even tertiary sources to primary sources. They have rules against original research, and follows the guideline that “secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic’s notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources”. It’s only with exception that primary sources are allowed, in which the primary sources “have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.”
Technically, I think they only allow primary sources to be referenced if supported by a secondary source. They have weird and complex rules around that,
I donated to Wikipedia, today. A few bucks to a very valuable site.
Wikipedia should run a fund raiser: “Give us a billion dollars or we’ll change the name.”
Donate today or else!
$1b = Wikipedia
< $1b = W
Nah, he’d call it X again, like literally every other company he’s tried that with.
Xpedia
HHHHHHHUUUUUURRRRRRRRRFFFGRGHF
A porn enciclopedia…
But for only $8 a month you are the only one who’s allowed to edit your site.
Amazing idea
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Wikipedia is not the Achilles heel of free access to information. The Achilles heel are the sources: libraries, websites.
Consider donating to the internet archive instead or as well. If the sources are poisoned, Wikipedia just repeats bullshit. It’s secondary literature.
I’m not sure you know what Achilles heel means
I believe they mean that if Wikipedia dies, we are still able to get proper information from the actual sources.
Wikipedia just summarizes the primary sources.
Since we can still get the info, we don’t succumb. If the primary sources get altered, then nothing in reality can be trusted.
Wikipedia actually much prefers secondary and even tertiary sources to primary sources. They have rules against original research, and follows the guideline that “secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic’s notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources”. It’s only with exception that primary sources are allowed, in which the primary sources “have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.”
Not disagreeing with you, just a bit of nuance.
Technically, I think they only allow primary sources to be referenced if supported by a secondary source. They have weird and complex rules around that,
Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, but I think that is not what user Star meant by primary. Just the sources that Wikipedia itself works with.
You’re right, but what would the internet be without a little pedantry and ignoring the point of the post? :D
You don’t simply alter facts, logical reasoning and scientific standards.
You can: Ban books, burn papers, delete servers, hack articles, AI creations, talk louder than reality.
Source: Wikipedia
A few years ago, I set up a monthly donation. Of all things I can use for free on the internet, Wikipedia deserves it the most.