User:Chris troutman/Essay

Wikipedia is a tertiary source, which means that it is based on secondary sources. The editors of Wikipedia aren't trusted to analyze primary sources; Wikipedia does not vet the work of journalists (who should just be reporting facts) or historians (who analyze what happened). Sadly, many Wikipedians fancy themselves second-hand journalists; they cobble together other primary sources about contemporaneous people and events. Collecting primary sources isn't a horrible thing; I've done it myself. The danger lies in how those possibly unreliable sources create the veneer of responsible scholasticism. NPOV problems abound precisely because Wikipedians are most interested in modern-day settings often within niche interests and rely on sporadic and biased sourcing. There is a better way.

Publication
Would-be editors should instead compile their primary source-driven analyses into an article for a scholarly journal or other reputable secondary source. Publication (especially in a peer-reviewed journal) lends more credence to the author's claims. Self-publishing is an absolute no-no. Self-publishing is only a new way to collect a primary source. Primary sources have their place but not in a tertiary publication like an encyclopedia.

Wikipedia can accustom editors to performing research, assembling primary and secondary sources, and drafting copy. Take these skills to writing for a reputable journal (or even a pop magazine or a local newspaper). The barrier to entry can be high (in terms of writing quality) and narrowed by the publication's interest (rather than your personal interest) but getting putting your words into a publication with an editorial board can generate reliable sourcing, which in turn can be used here.

You as a primary source
You want your personal experiences to be represented here, essentially using Wikipedia to self-publish? It's not going happen. There are some steps you can take, however, to help the process.
 * 1) Self-publish your story with any of the numerous print plants like AuthorHouse. Copiously list the publicly-available documentation that can back up your claims.
 * 2) Perhaps in 50 years a researcher will pick up your primary source and write a scholarly article or book about a wider issue using your information as a reference.
 * 3) In a hundred years perhaps enough secondary sources will have been written (to ensure notability and NPOV) that we will be able to cite them in an article here on Wikipedia.