User:Vassyana/NOR 002: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
- third party |
→Primary sources: revise for clarity |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
*The [http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/instruct/guides/primarysources.html University of California, Berkeley library] offers this definition: "Primary sources enable the researcher to get as close as possible to what actually happened during an historical event or time period. Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied, or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied (as in the case of memoirs) and they reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer."</ref> A secondary source may sometimes be treated as a primary source. For example, a book by a notable historian is a reliable secondary source for the events it covers, but it would be considered a primary source in an article about the historian. The use of these raw, first-hand, and/or out-of-date sources can lead editors to engage in original research, and thus they should be used with caution. |
*The [http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/instruct/guides/primarysources.html University of California, Berkeley library] offers this definition: "Primary sources enable the researcher to get as close as possible to what actually happened during an historical event or time period. Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied, or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied (as in the case of memoirs) and they reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer."</ref> A secondary source may sometimes be treated as a primary source. For example, a book by a notable historian is a reliable secondary source for the events it covers, but it would be considered a primary source in an article about the historian. The use of these raw, first-hand, and/or out-of-date sources can lead editors to engage in original research, and thus they should be used with caution. |
||
Article claims that rely on a primary source should '''(1)''' only report the content of the source, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and '''(2)''' make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims unless '''explicitly''' attributed in-text to the source.<ref>See [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence]] for more information about citation requirements.</ref> Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with ''both'' conditions. |
Article claims that rely on a primary source should '''(1)''' only report the content of the source, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and '''(2)''' make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims unless '''explicitly''' attributed in-text to the source.<ref>See [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence]] for more information about citation requirements.</ref> Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with ''both'' conditions. This does not apply to cases where editors cite reliable secondary sources that draw upon primary sources. In that instance, an editor would be using a reliable reference to present, analyze and/or interpret a primary source, not engaging in original research. |
||
Articles should usually rely on reliable secondary sources, but there are some occasions (and exceptions such as [[WP:SELFPUB]]) when primary sources may prove useful. Also, there is a broad [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] for widespread use of some primary sources, such as using census data in articles on populated places and citing interviews as direct sources of a subject's self-identification, opinions and statements. |
Articles should usually rely on reliable secondary sources, but there are some occasions (and exceptions such as [[WP:SELFPUB]]) when primary sources may prove useful. Also, there is a broad [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] for widespread use of some primary sources, such as using census data in articles on populated places and citing interviews as direct sources of a subject's self-identification, opinions and statements. |
||
Revision as of 19:45, 10 December 2007
To help identify and avoid original research, this section broadly defines primary and secondary sources.[1] Appropriate sourcing is a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding which sources are most appropriate for an article is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on individual article talk pages.
Secondary sources
- Secondary sources are references that draw on research and references to make interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims, or create a general overview.[2] Secondary sources are usually preferable because they generally provide analysis, offer a more independent view and provide a broader context for the subject. Care should be taken to avoid undue weight and ensure the information cited is used in context. Secondary sources may be biased by the views of its author(s) and/or publisher, so caution is required to preserve the neutral point of view. Review articles and references providing a broad treatment, such as university-level textbooks, are useful in summarizing large bodies of literature and research. Since Wikipedia summarizes broad knowledge on topics, they are useful for avoiding original synthesis and undue weight.
Primary sources
- Primary sources are generally sources of raw facts, historical items and/or are close to the subject; these are the materials most commonly used for original research by scholars.[3][4] A secondary source may sometimes be treated as a primary source. For example, a book by a notable historian is a reliable secondary source for the events it covers, but it would be considered a primary source in an article about the historian. The use of these raw, first-hand, and/or out-of-date sources can lead editors to engage in original research, and thus they should be used with caution.
Article claims that rely on a primary source should (1) only report the content of the source, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims unless explicitly attributed in-text to the source.[5] Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions. This does not apply to cases where editors cite reliable secondary sources that draw upon primary sources. In that instance, an editor would be using a reliable reference to present, analyze and/or interpret a primary source, not engaging in original research.
Articles should usually rely on reliable secondary sources, but there are some occasions (and exceptions such as WP:SELFPUB) when primary sources may prove useful. Also, there is a broad consensus for widespread use of some primary sources, such as using census data in articles on populated places and citing interviews as direct sources of a subject's self-identification, opinions and statements.
Notes
- ^ In various fields of study, professionals make distinctions between primary and secondary sources, but in differing fashions. Some further distinguish between secondary and tertiary sources.
- ^ University of California, Berkeley library defines "secondary source" as "a work that interprets or analyzes an historical event or phenomenon. It is generally at least one step removed from the event. Examples include scholarly or popular books and articles, reference books, and textbooks."
- ^ Examples include (respectively) transcripts of the Nixon tapes, Bede's Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum and The Autobiography of Malcolm X. Further examples include: archaeological artifacts; artistic and fictional works; census results; diaries; interviews; photographs; religious scriptures; and tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires.
- ^ Definitions of primary sources:
- The University of Nevada, Reno Libraries define primary sources as providing "an inside view of a particular event." They offer as examples: original documents, such as autobiographies, diaries, e-mail, interviews, letters, minutes, news film footage, official records, photographs, raw research data, and speeches; creative works, such as art, drama, films, music, novels, poetry; and relics or artifacts, such as buildings, clothing, DNA, furniture, jewelry, pottery.
- The University of California, Berkeley library offers this definition: "Primary sources enable the researcher to get as close as possible to what actually happened during an historical event or time period. Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied, or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied (as in the case of memoirs) and they reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer."
- ^ See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence for more information about citation requirements.