1,129
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 15:
Line 15: + +
Conservapedia talk:Sources (view source)
Revision as of 19:19, March 29, 2007
, 19:19, March 29, 2007quaternary sources?
::As for other wikis, I'd like to get some clarification on that myself ... but I'm guessing the short answer to that they'd rather we didn't. On the other hand, if you linked to a specific [[version]] . . . ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:04, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
::As for other wikis, I'd like to get some clarification on that myself ... but I'm guessing the short answer to that they'd rather we didn't. On the other hand, if you linked to a specific [[version]] . . . ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:04, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Even then, its the issue of a wiki is not a primary source. Should references be restricted to primary sources? Should secondary sources be allowed? Or tertiary sources? If it turns out that Conservapedia uses tertiary sources, then it becomes a quaternary source which is rarely acceptable for any citations being so far removed from the original material. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:19, 29 March 2007 (EDT)