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,
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
Removed by mod
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.
You don’t simply alter facts, logical reasoning and scientific standards.
Removed by mod
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
Source: Wikipedia