• Star
    link
    fedilink
    English
    19
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • ram
      link
      fedilink
      English
      271 year ago

      Wikipedia just summarizes the primary sources.

      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.

      • Star
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        You can: Ban books, burn papers, delete servers, hack articles, AI creations, talk louder than reality.

    • wagesj45
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      Wikipedia just summarizes the primary sources.

      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,

      • @emberwit@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, but I think that is not what user Star meant by primary. Just the sources that Wikipedia itself works with.

        • wagesj45
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          You’re right, but what would the internet be without a little pedantry and ignoring the point of the post? :D