What do you mean? Wikipedians can cite primary sources. AARoads is such a source.
Of course, the person who writes the Wikipedia article should preferably not be the same person who wrote the article being cited.
Of course, the person who writes the Wikipedia article should preferably not be the same person who wrote the article being cited.
A variant of this: you do the research, cite your findings with presumably reliable sources and post it somewhere like a personal blog. Wikipedia doesn't like directly linking to it [0], but if an editor writes the same content and cites the same sources, that's also OK, even though I'd argue that's plagiarism.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-p...
If you want to help Wikipedia, feel free to write articles based on work that other people did in your field. Don't add any conclusions of your own. Let someone else write the articles on the research that was done by you.
I think that is a very reasonable tradeoff.
—-
> if an editor writes the same content and cites the same sources, that's also OK, even though I'd argue that's plagiarism.
An editor should not copy your blog post. They can describe whatever you wrote about and cite your blog post as a source. Or, they can go after the same original sources you have cited and write their own summarizing article (but not copy the blog post, and they also can't add any of their own conclusions).
That's my point: you've done the legwork, but you don't get credit for it, and as far as Wikipedia's policies are concerned, can't. They aren't supposed to cite your blog as a source, because it's self-published. I've seen many edits citing what I thought were well-researched entries get reverted because "it's a blog."