Talk:Source criticism

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 September 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bible: Criticism Low‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of the biblical criticism work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Libraries Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Genealogy Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Genealogy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genealogy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GenealogyWikipedia:WikiProject GenealogyTemplate:WikiProject GenealogyGenealogy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Translation

The articles in other languages (those that I can read at least) referenced from this (e.g. de:Quellenkritik has a much broader definition. That is, the careful reading of any source and the (formal or informal) analysis of facts and presentation. The English definition seems to aim for analysis of more specific subjects.

I'm not sure if this article is too narrow or if the "translations" refer to the incorrect article. I do hope that there is a word and article for the general source analysis, but as non-native in English I can't find it. JAGulin 15:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of Source Criticism section

To my best judgement this section is composed entirely of Original Research which is apparently well conducted and could possibly become an interesting academic paper but which cannot be a part of wikipedia in its current form. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at Source criticism#Literature and references? I'd agree that the article in general and section in specific could use more inline citations, but the material does not strike me as original research. The article has recently been totally rewritten by someone who actually is an expert on the subject (I looked at their biography and publications when they began). I'm grateful they are; I've had it on my watchlist since I closed the AFD last year, because I recognized that it was a article in poor condition. Indeed, you tagged the article last July as then covering only one aspect of a broader subject. So I'm a bit surprised to see you now concerned that it is describing how it is a broader subject. Perhaps you could be more specific about what you would like changed? (Or even better, try to write a better version of the section - though I'll understand if you don't; I haven't touched the article because I lack the relevant expertise.) GRBerry 16:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with the inclusion of new material, which was indeed much needed. But some of the material included was decideldly OR such as the discussion of google hits and the differences between coverage in different wikipedias, and some synthesis of different sources. I have removed the OR tag and the most offending editorializing and OR. I think it is ok now, but the differences between the definitions of source criticism in europe and the states could be expanded with more material which is not based on synthesis.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant?

If this article called "Source criticism" is about source evaluation, which has its own article, why does this article exist as well? If they are on the same topic there should only be one article. I suggest merging them. Hairy Dude (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant!!

The content of the "source criticism" page should be transferred to the "source evaluation", and the "source criticism" link should forward the user there. It is not necessary to have two separate articles on two related terms describing the same phenomenon. Since "source evaluation" is generally regarded to be the overarching term, it should be the name of the article. Any good introductory book to research method (e. g. Gall, Gall & Borg, 2007 - Introduction to research in education) would underpin this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.90.48.233 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 30 April 2009

No, there is a difference. Criticism is not just the evaluation as should be done by any thoughtful reader or writer, but the publication of an evaluation in a form suitable for use by others such as a Review journal. User:LeadSongDog come howl 21:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two different concepts

Both articles should be kept, they refer to two different (though related) concepts. Mutual pointers are required, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.227.15.253 (talk) 12:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Swedish schools, when "källkritik" is mentioned, this has the same place in education as "media literacy" has in the U.S. --LA2 (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge request

The above three different headings, that concerns discussions involving a Merge request (maybe with the exception of the Swedish schools comments) of Source evaluation and Source criticism, should have been sub-headings of Merge request. This also facilitates the eventual closing and archiving of this discussion with the determined consensus.

The discussion

The two different concepts (though related) would be pointed out how? From my quick glance at the two I see from the start "Source evaluation" explains, ...is the skill of analyzing information sources in order to assess their credibility. and "Source criticism" states, is a published source evaluation (or information evaluation). I am trying to figure out why the fact of publishing (source criticism) of information (Source evaluation), can not be covered under a heading within source evaluation. In order for someone to criticize a source (or information) it would have to be evaluated so I am at a loss to surmise how there is a concept difference. If one article could be considered the main topic, with major coverage needed on a related but inclusive sub-topic, then a "See main"" is needed. This article is bigger, has more information, and I think was created first, but is still the publishing (by definition) of the evaluation of information or source. If this is not so then someone explain with rationale how it is not.

Merge to this article

Source evaluation can not be logically merged into this article. That article needs work and expanding or this article merged there. A compromise (or I support merging there) would be to tag that article, hope to get some work on it, and use the "main" article notations. We have a discussion concerning two titles of articles and if they should be merged. This means we are analyzing information. The analyzing involves posting (as opposed to publishing), which is a form of source criticism, which is a result of the discussion of the source(s) so others can read, observe, react to (more criticism), but is still not the subject but an action to analyzing or evaluation of a subject. The title Source criticism (of Biblical studies), or Information source (mathematics) are examples. Any source that someone wishes to analyze and publish, that has an article on Wikipedia, could have another article concerning the criticism. That could be an enormous number of articles (trend or whatever) that could be created with references (example; Source criticism (philosophy) and so forth), that may not be necessary. If this article is kept separate (because of size or scope) then it, along with others, should be analyzed so a determination can be made as to what the acceptable parent article is considered. I have observed;

Source evaluation

The article with the merge request to here. As stated; The evaluation of information or source that would be a required step before any action such as publishing or "source criticism".

Information source

" Source means the origin of something. An information source is a source of information for somebody, i.e. anything that might inform a person about something or provide knowledge to somebody. Information sources may be observations, people, speeches, documents, pictures, organizations etc.

Information literacy The American Library Association's Presidential Committee on Information Literacy, whose 1989 final report outlined the importance of the concept. The report defined information literacy as the ability to recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information and highlighted information literacy as a skill essential for lifelong learning and the production of an informed and prosperous citizenry. President Barack Obama's Proclamation (October 2009 as National Information Literacy Awareness Month) stated that, "Rather than merely possessing data, we must also learn the skills necessary to acquire, collate, and evaluate information for any situation... Though we may know how to find the information we need, we must also know how to evaluate it. Over the past decade, we have seen a crisis of authenticity emerge. We now live in a world where anyone can publish an opinion or perspective, whether true or not, and have that opinion amplified within the information marketplace. At the same time, Americans have unprecedented access to the diverse and independent sources of information, as well as institutions such as libraries and universities, that can help separate truth from fiction and signal from noise."

Information evaluation

Apparently the same as Source evaluation

Source criticism

This article, defined as the publishing of "source evaluation".

Source criticism (biblical studies)

A source criticism concerning biblical studies.

Concerning "källkritik"; I don't see any relevance to the merge request. I read the article on Media literacy, there is no section concerning Sweden or Swedish schools , and I could see no correlation between this article, the stated place in education (especially in the US), nor the tie that connects these things with this article. I suppose this would require further explanation.

Conclusion: Do not support (otr500); I see "Source evaluation" as a parent article that needs work but the references are more clear. Lacking any persuasive comments I am not sure that either article can be merged without compromising the integrity of "Source evaluation". The way the references are used in this article are poor at best as some sections are tainted with possible original research with sections not supported by the listed references. This article probably needs a rewrite. Otr500 (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

terribly written

this is SUCH an important topic. This is written up some pompous ivory tower types. Needs extensive revision to provide clear and useful information. I will try to work on it this weekend. What a bummer to find this topic handled in such a way.Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Circular reporting

According to the artice circular reporting,
Circular reporting, or false confirmation, is a situation in source criticism where a piece of information appears to come from multiple independent sources, but in reality comes from only one source.

I don't understand how that can be called 'circular', though the article has two supporting citations - but each is about that usage in Military Intelligence. If any editor interested in source criticism can help clarify, comments are invited at talk:Circular reporting#This article confuses two concepts?. Thank you. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]