"You say you come from an academic background, but don't seem to be making a distinction between primary and secondary sources."
Not sure why the shade is necessary - I didn't make the distinction because it is implicit in my question.
For instance, if I want to illustrate the story of the Donner Party, and I am talking in broad strokes, then can I safely assume that it is common knowledge that they were part of a wagon train, got snowed in at the foot of a mountain range and had to resort to cannibalism? Do I need to choose a secondary source where I picked up some facts that fleshed-out the story? Or do I need to research for a primary, say a journal entry, survivor account, original news paper article, etc.?
"Having 20 blogs telling the same basic story doesn't make it 20 times more credible, just that 19 people are copying the story from the first."
That somewhat misses the point of my question while also wanting me to respond "exactly!". I am not as concerned with accuracy in the question I pose because the facts I would be retelling are broadly known hence the retelling on multiple fronts...so then which would I choose if I needed to - Blog 1, 6, 17?
I do not intend to drill down into very specific details. And to your point, if they are coloured by time and myth then it makes it even more questionable what the source for said story / myth would be.
What I meant with respect to the blog / TV reference is if there are a plethora of "sources" (e.g. blogs, tv programs) from which I have re-read or re-heard about the story, and they all tell the basic story, then do I need to show a source for my understanding of the story and what would that be?
To use the Donner party example again, in this case a primary source would presumably be either the journal of a survivor or of a rescuer i.e. a direct participant / witness, or the first newspaper article reporting the story (if I can find one). Personally I recall first being told by my Mom when young. I remember this clearly because, aside from some dated Bugs Bunny cartoons with him in a cauldron having been captured by "savages", I had no real understanding of cannibalism until that point. So I knew the basic story my whole life...but only later was it fleshed-out for me, meaning I learned it was due to bad advice from the the trail leader or that rescuers discovered human bones in a stew pot and so on. So who / what do I source or do I need to?
Another way to put it would be: How do you know that Wyatt Earp won the gunfight at the OK Corral? Can you provide me a source for that knowledge? Is it needed? What would the "trigger" for sourcing be? Could I talk about the gunfight with no issue but if I read and include that Wyatt skipped breakfast that morning because he was too anxious to eat, would that need a source? Therein is my issue.
I think perhaps some confusion is on my part...what I am imagining is, again, broad strokes story-wise with the illustrations carrying a lot of the weight as well...so for each story maybe a page or two. I am interested in macabre stories from the old west but I wasn't planning to drill down much more than the "headline" facts if you will.
So perhaps your point is it doesn't matter - some form of source (primary or secondary) is required regardless?
