User talk:BootstrapsRiley: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "==Primary v Secondary Sources== * You removed all of the primary sources and accompanying information from the page 2021 Birmingham municipal elections with the comment ''...") |
(→Bombingham changes: new section) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
* You removed all of the primary sources and accompanying information from the page [[2021 Birmingham municipal elections]] with the comment ''Would prefer to summarize others' research''. One of the reasons I began contributing to BhamWiki is because I am a professional researcher and I have been unhappy with the lack of accessible information and failure to cite primary sources cited in news articles. What is the justification for preferring to use secondary sources over primary sources, especially when no secondary sources exist? --[[User:BootstrapsRiley|BootstrapsRiley]] ([[User talk:BootstrapsRiley|talk]]) 08:38, 15 November 2020 (PST) | * You removed all of the primary sources and accompanying information from the page [[2021 Birmingham municipal elections]] with the comment ''Would prefer to summarize others' research''. One of the reasons I began contributing to BhamWiki is because I am a professional researcher and I have been unhappy with the lack of accessible information and failure to cite primary sources cited in news articles. What is the justification for preferring to use secondary sources over primary sources, especially when no secondary sources exist? --[[User:BootstrapsRiley|BootstrapsRiley]] ([[User talk:BootstrapsRiley|talk]]) 08:38, 15 November 2020 (PST) | ||
** The justification is that as publisher I don't have the resources to edit original research and place it into context. I'm open to using primary sources when unavoidable and uncontroversial (See [[Bhamwiki:Policy]]). A political campaign doesn't really fit those criteria as it is likely to be covered widely by the press (as we get closer to August), and is certain to involve controversy. That said, it would satisfy my concerns if we could cite research and analysis that you have published independently. --[[User:Dystopos|Dystopos]] ([[User talk:Dystopos|talk]]) 09:20, 15 November 2020 (PST) | ** The justification is that as publisher I don't have the resources to edit original research and place it into context. I'm open to using primary sources when unavoidable and uncontroversial (See [[Bhamwiki:Policy]]). A political campaign doesn't really fit those criteria as it is likely to be covered widely by the press (as we get closer to August), and is certain to involve controversy. That said, it would satisfy my concerns if we could cite research and analysis that you have published independently. --[[User:Dystopos|Dystopos]] ([[User talk:Dystopos|talk]]) 09:20, 15 November 2020 (PST) | ||
== Bombingham changes == | |||
I appreciate your effort to improve the [[Bombingham]] entry by listing bombings, but there were so many we created [[List of racially-motivated bombings|a separate list]]. It's linked within the text of the Bombinham entry. Maintaining two copies of the list just duplicates effort, so I reverted your changes. --[[User:Lkseitz|Lkseitz]] ([[User talk:Lkseitz|talk]]) 20:18, 15 February 2022 (PST) | |||
Latest revision as of 23:18, 15 February 2022
Primary v Secondary Sources
- You removed all of the primary sources and accompanying information from the page 2021 Birmingham municipal elections with the comment Would prefer to summarize others' research. One of the reasons I began contributing to BhamWiki is because I am a professional researcher and I have been unhappy with the lack of accessible information and failure to cite primary sources cited in news articles. What is the justification for preferring to use secondary sources over primary sources, especially when no secondary sources exist? --BootstrapsRiley (talk) 08:38, 15 November 2020 (PST)
- The justification is that as publisher I don't have the resources to edit original research and place it into context. I'm open to using primary sources when unavoidable and uncontroversial (See Bhamwiki:Policy). A political campaign doesn't really fit those criteria as it is likely to be covered widely by the press (as we get closer to August), and is certain to involve controversy. That said, it would satisfy my concerns if we could cite research and analysis that you have published independently. --Dystopos (talk) 09:20, 15 November 2020 (PST)
Bombingham changes
I appreciate your effort to improve the Bombingham entry by listing bombings, but there were so many we created a separate list. It's linked within the text of the Bombinham entry. Maintaining two copies of the list just duplicates effort, so I reverted your changes. --Lkseitz (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2022 (PST)