this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2024
863 points (99.3% liked)
Greentext
4394 readers
1150 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Primary sources make shit up too tho
But if you read a primary source, that's one persom who had the opportunity to make stuff up. With a secondary source, even if the primary it's based on is legit, there's some other guy who wasn't there and may either be lying to you or misinterpreting the primary source his report is based on. Each new level of isolation adds another opportunity to stack both lies and mistakes onto the data.
It's not that you can't go wrong with primary sources. It's that you can go a lot wronger without them.
Counterargument, secondary sources are often a good filter for bogus primary sources. This is the primary reason Wikipedia does not allow primary source references.
That's very different. Wikipedia doesn't allow people to edit their own pages. They don't have rules against linking to interviews with persons involved in an event, for example.
The main problem with primary sources is that they are often involved in the event itself - or at least greatly affected by it - which makes them the most biased.