Dwarves on Wikipedia!

[Olgar Shiverstone]

"Primary sources" in this case means using sources from or closely affiliated to the publisher. As much as possible on Wikipedia, we want to utilize independent reliable sources. Yeah, in some ways that is kind of bass-ackwards, but that's how people seem to want it so that's how the policies are structured.

Boggle.

So if you're writing an article about how D&D describes elves, you can't quote the PHB -- you have to quote an "independent reliable source" that describes the PHB? No wonder rational scholars dump on Wikipedia ...

 

[jasper]

Scholars dump Wikipedia because every their 11 year olds can edit the articles. Wikipedia is great for nerd/fandom tuff. But I wouldn't trust them if they told me the sun rose in the East.

 

[BOZ]

Boggle.

So if you're writing an article about how D&D describes elves, you can't quote the PHB -- you have to quote an "independent reliable source" that describes the PHB? No wonder rational scholars dump on Wikipedia ...

It's not that you can't - that would be ridiculous. It's that what you should do is to find a source written by someone who comments on things such as how elves changed from edition to edition, or the different ways people use elves in a campaign, or how they are similar to or different from folklore and literature… that sort of thing. Using primary sources alone is sufficient in my opinion (although that is not widely shared), but having good, reliable independent sources makes for some good information and a far better article.

 

[Herobizkit]

I mean, just track the evolution of the Drow and find sources prior to the 1e Unearhted Arcana (the Basic D&D Gazetters had Shadow Elves, which were kinda cool, fr'ex) to color those. Plus there are "Dark Elves" in Scandinavian folklore...

 

[Torchiest]

It's a done deal!