• Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        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.

      • skulkingaround@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        Counterargument, secondary sources are often a good filter for bogus primary sources. This is the primary reason Wikipedia does not allow primary source references.

        • Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          13 hours ago

          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.