Once again, I think you missed the point of my post. Your talk about primary and secondary sources made no sense in the context you wanted to use them. Primary sources are not inherantly better than secondary sources. Often times they are a lot worse. In fact, the whole trial based metaphor breaks down completely here.
Since the Wikipedia's articals can't simply be judged on the organization's credibility, a reader needs to look at each and every artical and make a judgement about its reliability. This means looking at the citations made by the authors and perhaps looking at the talk pages as well.
Some pages on the Wikipedia are very credible while others have little to no credibility. (Wikipedia attempts to mark pages which aren't credible as needing sources cited, but obviously this will only catch a portion.) Useing the wikipedia correctly requires critical thinking skills and a willingness to put some effort into. Once again, something that a person should already be doing when they gather information from just about any source. Blindly accepting information from any authority isn't acceptable.
No, that is not what a primary source is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source
Secondary sources are often peer reviewed in a journal in the academic and scientific fields. Primary sources come from those who directly witness an event. A reporter on the ground in a war zone is a primary source. A general at the pentagon is a secondary source.
What expert witnesses are in a trial are secondary sources. Wikipedia is a secondary source. The very idea that not being a primary source makes a source unreliable and bad is absurd. That is what I objected to in your original post. Indeed often times primary sources in a trial setting are plain inacureate.
Indeed Wikipedia due to the annonymous nature cannot by itself be considered a credible organization through reputation. Ah, but I gave two merits for creating credibility: reputation and sources. Wikipedia can become credible through well sourced articals that you can go back and see where they are drawing the information from. This is the best form of credibility available, and one an intelligent reader can make a decision upon himself. Of course this does imply that parts of the Wikipedia are far less credible than other parts, and this is indeed true.
I don't see how Wikipedia is going to be immune to libel suits. The only issue is finding the direct author can be difficult and due to the fluid nature of the site the offending material once pointed out would probably be corrected if it was not true and backed by credible sources.
I would like to point out that by your own admision every last encylopedia, text book, and other refrence is a secondary source and by that nature "hear-say" and worthless. Being a secondary source is not a bad thing, since these sources are necessary. In trials certain types of secondary sources are quite admissiable, they are called "expert witnesses."
Indeed, professional research is by no means any more credible than the wikipedia. Its all a matter of sources and the credibility of the organization. With Wikipedia I would not trust an artical that doesn't have good sources. Of course there are few organizations I'd trust if they couldn't provide proper sources.
Slashdot Mirror
Once again, I think you missed the point of my post. Your talk about primary and secondary sources made no sense in the context you wanted to use them. Primary sources are not inherantly better than secondary sources. Often times they are a lot worse. In fact, the whole trial based metaphor breaks down completely here. Since the Wikipedia's articals can't simply be judged on the organization's credibility, a reader needs to look at each and every artical and make a judgement about its reliability. This means looking at the citations made by the authors and perhaps looking at the talk pages as well. Some pages on the Wikipedia are very credible while others have little to no credibility. (Wikipedia attempts to mark pages which aren't credible as needing sources cited, but obviously this will only catch a portion.) Useing the wikipedia correctly requires critical thinking skills and a willingness to put some effort into. Once again, something that a person should already be doing when they gather information from just about any source. Blindly accepting information from any authority isn't acceptable.
No, that is not what a primary source is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source Secondary sources are often peer reviewed in a journal in the academic and scientific fields. Primary sources come from those who directly witness an event. A reporter on the ground in a war zone is a primary source. A general at the pentagon is a secondary source.
What expert witnesses are in a trial are secondary sources. Wikipedia is a secondary source. The very idea that not being a primary source makes a source unreliable and bad is absurd. That is what I objected to in your original post. Indeed often times primary sources in a trial setting are plain inacureate. Indeed Wikipedia due to the annonymous nature cannot by itself be considered a credible organization through reputation. Ah, but I gave two merits for creating credibility: reputation and sources. Wikipedia can become credible through well sourced articals that you can go back and see where they are drawing the information from. This is the best form of credibility available, and one an intelligent reader can make a decision upon himself. Of course this does imply that parts of the Wikipedia are far less credible than other parts, and this is indeed true. I don't see how Wikipedia is going to be immune to libel suits. The only issue is finding the direct author can be difficult and due to the fluid nature of the site the offending material once pointed out would probably be corrected if it was not true and backed by credible sources.
I would like to point out that by your own admision every last encylopedia, text book, and other refrence is a secondary source and by that nature "hear-say" and worthless. Being a secondary source is not a bad thing, since these sources are necessary. In trials certain types of secondary sources are quite admissiable, they are called "expert witnesses."
Indeed, professional research is by no means any more credible than the wikipedia. Its all a matter of sources and the credibility of the organization. With Wikipedia I would not trust an artical that doesn't have good sources. Of course there are few organizations I'd trust if they couldn't provide proper sources.