User talk:Silver seren/How I Feel About The Project

A minor comment
The actual reason that the use of primary sources is deprecated is that allowing their use invites Original Research. Using, handling and analysing primary sources require skills in research that most editors do not have. It is also not true that primary sources are usually reliable - they are often even more biased and require a skilled researcher to be able to uncover the bias and synthesise differences between various sources into a coherent picture. Basing articles on primary sources conflict with wikipedia's mission of being a provider of already existing knowledge - not a producer of new knowledge.·Maunus· ƛ · 02:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesn't change my point in that, on certain subjects, all the information that secondary sources use are things that primarily come from primary sources. For example, information on BLPs largely comes from discussion with them on topics. Information on scientific objects and processes comes from the creator explaining how they work in papers. All of the information we obtain from these things from from the creators that are then written into secondary sources. So, how is second-hand knowledge better than the source the knowledge was taken from? Silver  seren C 02:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it was taken by someone who knows how to do research and who knows which primary sources are reliable for which kinds of claims. It is our guarantee that wikipedia editors do not need to take responsibility for doing research, but only for presenting research done by professional researchers.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)