The crying “History” button at the top right sends its regards. Yes, the World Jewish Congress has published a report that demands Wikipedia add a feature to view the history of articles, see what actions were performed by whom, and “host forums and discussions within the Wikipedia community to address concerns about neutrality and gather feedback for policy improvements”. It also wants to force all admins and above to reveal their real names.
But primary research isn’t allowed as a source on Wikipedia…
(someone smarter than me correct me if im wrong but) in this case it’s considered a non-primary source since the article is citing what the WJC said about Wikipedia (their criticism), not the WJC’s original research on the subject.
disclaimer have edited wikipedia maybe once in my life, only a small clue what im talking about
That’s correct, except it’s still considered a primary source, which can be cited to see what a group said if due.
wait can you clarify? this comment made me more confused /gen if you are willing
Primary sources and research cannot be cited to support objective facts. However, they can be used to cite criticism from a group. The only difference with your original reply is that being cited as criticism instead of fact does not magically make the source secondary.
okay gotcha thanks for the clarification! love me an internet discussion that ends with me being smarter
right, i kind of used the word “referenced” there intentionally, since the actual article would likely cite an actual academic publication which speaks on the matter
thanks for the info!
(I meant to quote from the article but forgot to style it as a blockquote)
(speaking of which, Wikipedia’s editors hate decoration, which they consider to be juvenile and include that little pastel vertical line on the left of blockquotes, in favor of the browser default of indenting the quote on both sides)