Anarchopedia talk:Reliable sources

Primary sources

I have never liked the Primary sources rule, for the reason that it excludes documents. This has bugged me so much I have tried to put it out of my head for the most part. So there may well be parts of it that are good policy. But that is just more proof that it is flawed; in what way are eyewitness accounts and a House of Representatives record of a bill related, other than through this dubious grouping? It certainly is not because of reliability; we all know how flawed a person's perception of an event can be, especially if they are in shock, and a reporter stuffs a microphone in their face, but this is nothing like a document over which lawyers have deliberated. I am really not trying to run down 1st person accounts either...given a good observer and enough time, etc etc...just trying to put things in perspective here. It is really surprising, is what I am saying, just how flawed the WP rules are. Anarchangel 23:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)