Wiktionary talk:Wiktionary is a secondary source

@User:Dan Polansky, from the page:

Wiktionary must not rely on other secondary sources, such as other dictionaries, research papers on etymologies and so forth(..)

Lol! I guess this needs to be thrown out. Perhaps an analogy with CFI could be drawn? Honestly, all I'm concerned with is that in BP, etc., I got the feeling of nearly unequivocal support for sourcing requirements (except for one user whose name starts with C). Now, what to use instead of this page (it's kind of ridiculous and major language-centric – those tiny Amerindian languages, for example, can only ever hope to be attested by relying on dictionaries, so, that statement about not using other dictionaries is pretty myopic.) Neitrāls vārds (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The page is neither a policy nor a policy draft. Wiktionary can be a secondary source for definitions, but it should IMHO be a tertiary source for etymologies and reconstructed terms. The page is not very important; WT:CFI makes it clear what the inclusion criteria are in the mainspace. However, Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Reconstructed_languages does not state any inclusion criteria for terms of reconstructed languages. The CFI section links to Wiktionary:Reconstructed terms, which was subject to much non-consensual editing despite being marked as a policy, and despite the top of the page saying "It must not be modified without a VOTE". --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)