On Jan 6, 2009, at 5:36 PM, Carl Beckhorn wrote: > * For results that are sufficiently new that they are not yet > covered by > secondary literature. I can think of several research programs with > numerous papers by numerous independent authors, with significant > scientific interest, but no coverage outside of journals. These areas > have no sources that on their face are accessible to a reader without > specialized knowledge; the wikipedia article may be the most accesible > writing on the subject.
A secondary aspect of this which has recently occurred to me is the "lies to children" problem - elementary textbooks in scientific fields (chemistry, I know, does this. YMMV with other fields) simplify things for practical purposes. Advanced education in chemistry is, from my understanding, in part about learning all the ways that you were lied to in earlier classes, The moral of this story is that source-based writing is a dodgy model. In fact, one does not learn simply by reading the sources, and one, by extension, cannot summarize knowledge simply by regurgitating them. There is a reason that schools supplements reading with oral lessons. Complete reliance on published secondary sources is a myth at best. -Phil _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
