551
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024
551 points (96.5% liked)
Not The Onion
12427 readers
65 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
this PDF will probably be referenced in the “genocide denial” article in the not-too-distant future
But primary research isn't allowed as a source on Wikipedia...
(someone smarter than me correct me if im wrong but) in this case it’s considered a non-primary source since the article is citing what the WJC said about Wikipedia (their criticism), not the WJC’s original research on the subject.
disclaimer have edited wikipedia maybe once in my life, only a small clue what im talking about
That's correct, except it's still considered a primary source, which can be cited to see what a group said if due.
wait can you clarify? this comment made me more confused /gen if you are willing
Primary sources and research cannot be cited to support objective facts. However, they can be used to cite criticism from a group. The only difference with your original reply is that being cited as criticism instead of fact does not magically make the source secondary.
okay gotcha thanks for the clarification! love me an internet discussion that ends with me being smarter
right, i kind of used the word “referenced” there intentionally, since the actual article would likely cite an actual academic publication which speaks on the matter
thanks for the info!
(I meant to quote from the article but forgot to style it as a blockquote)
(speaking of which, Wikipedia's editors hate decoration, which they consider to be juvenile and include that little pastel vertical line on the left of blockquotes, in favor of the browser default of indenting the quote on both sides)