User talk:Yaris678/PSTS/Archive 1

Scientific primary sources

Resolved

... by adding text to complex categorisation. Yaris678 (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although this has been mentioned before, elsewhere, I'd like to remind everyone that the terms have a subtly different meaning in scientific publication (see this, for example), so scientists are often taken aback when they see primary sources deprecated.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to explain why that is so different. I guess it depends on the nature of the experiment. However, if someone does a drugs trial, they may think it shows that a particular drug is effective. A different trial may appear to show that it is ineffective. This is where you need a meta-analysis. i.e. a secondary source. Of course, there may be experiments which are so conclusive that no meta analysis is required. However, Wikipedia editors are not generally in a position to judge this. On the other hand, if a reputable source discussing the experimental results describes them as conclusive... but that would be a secondary source. Yaris678 (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis is on to something. If we decide to put this as a separate article, we ought to bite the bullet and point out how Wikipedia usage of the term conforms more to the usage in the humanities, where original research articles are generally considered secondary sources, than to the usage of the humanities, where original research articles are considered primary sources. That would clear up much of the confusion scientists have with Wikipedia's use of the terms.

Here's a useful discussion from the NOR Archives of some web sources on the PSTS distinction.

One possible way to clarify Wikipedia's approach to these terms would be a table placing specific examples within the Wikipedia PSTS framework. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing with some examples, within scientific usage the first publication of an idea is a primary source. Thus Watson and Crick's, Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid, Nature 171 (1953): 737–738 and Einstein's, Zur elektrodynamik bewegter körper (On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies), Annalen der Physik 17 (1905): 891–921 are both considered by scientists to be primary sources, but since they involve interpretations of experimental data (Watson and Crick) or of theoretical concepts (Einstein), they are secondary sources within Wikipedia's usage of the term. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a somewhat deeper look at the sources I cited above from the NOR Archives, and I find that many of them are not the best sources to rely on. They're Library guides on Nursing literature, an instructor's notes on Veterinary literature, etc... Surely there are some more reliable sources (e.g., in the print literature) that we can build our discussion on. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! The term used most commonly in the sciences is primary literature or primary publication, not primary sources. A widely cited definition is that of the Council of Biology Editors (1968) (I haven't traced down the original source yet but various secondary sources give this definition:

"An acceptable primary scientific publication must be the first disclosure containing sufficient information to enable peers to assess observation, to report experiments, and to evaluate intellectual processes; moreover, it must be susceptible to sensory perception, essentially permanent, available to the scientific community without restriction, and available for regular screening by one or more of major recognized secondary services...."

Where people engaged in humanistic studies consider the raw materials primary sources, and therefore in need of interpretation, this definition of primary publications (not primary sources) as including the fact that the intellectual processes (analyses?, interpretations?) are visible to the reader. The presence of these "intellectual processes" appears to make them secondary by Wikipedia's definition. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does everyone agree with what Steve McLuskey is saying about scientific primary sources? It makes sense to me. However, I would probably stick the words on it in the section on complex source categorisation. That would put it with similar cases and make it clear that the guidance on independence applies to these secondary sources too. Yaris678 (talk) 10:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of the above, I'd revise the text in complex source categorisation, which currently says:

"For example, a scientific paper reporting the findings of a single experiment is a primary source. However, it may contain a review of previous work; this review is a secondary source."

I suggest rewriting it to say:

"For example, a scientific paper may contain raw data, such as the results of the authors' experiments or observations, other statistical data, and the like, which are a primary sources. The authors' analyses and interpretations of those data, however, constitute a secondary source."

Comments please. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say "For example, a scientific paper may contain raw data, such as the observations made during experiments, which are a primary sources. The authors' analyses and interpretations of those data, however, constitute a secondary source. It may also contain a review of previous work; this review is a secondary source."

I also think we need to think a bit harder about the independence issue. The author's review of previous work is probably going to be independent but the author's analysis of the data is not. Then again, if it has been peer reviewed... that implies it has been accepted by independent people. Yaris678 (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think I have addressed this one with recent edits. Any opinion? Yaris678 (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fitting in PSTS and Notability

Resolved

...By adding a Notability section and restructuring to separate definitions from guidance. Yaris678 (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should discuss the fact that primary sources do not establish Notability ... you need a secondary (or tertiary) source for that ... this is in sync with WP:NOTE and all the special notability guidelines. Blueboar (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. And related in a way I can't put my finger on to the point I made above about scientific primary sources. I will add something to the guidance on primary sources. Feel free to modify that text, as I said above. That section is getting a bit big now. Do you think this is the best way to do it or do you think we should separate definitions from guidance? Yaris678 (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I like that... start off with a section on definitions and examples... then move to guidance, discussing different policies and how they relate to the various source types.

Cool. I guess the structure would be something like:

PSTS
- Definitions
  - Primary sources
  - Secondary sources
  - Tertiary sources
- Guidance
  - Original research
  - Notability
  - Quotations
  - Complex source categorisation

Yaris678 (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally got round to doing this, altough I have used a slightly different structure to the one above. I had to reword some of the guidence to make it fit the new structure but I think it is an improvement. Any thoughts? Yaris678 (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translations

Resolved

... by adding text to complex categorisation. Yaris678 (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was recently involved in an RfC where an editor was claiming that translations were not primary sources. The consensus was that they were and this draft offers an opportunity to make that explicit. Something like:

An published edition or translation of a primary source, such as Newton's Principia, is itself a primary source. However, the notes or commentary to that edition or translation, which present the editor's or translator's interpretation of the text, are secondary sources.

Thoughts and comments welcome. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I have just added it to the section on "Complex source categorisation". My only slight reservation is that I can see people misusing this. If I translate some obscure German poem I might add a commentary overstating the importance of the poem; possibly to big up my own achievement in translating it; possibly to try to improve the sales of my translation. I guess what I am saying is that this sort of secondary source is unlikely to be a WP:IS. Perhaps we should point that out in the guidance. Actually I will add that now... Yaris678 (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a translation of a Primary source is still a primary source... However, we should also point out that a translation of a Secondary source is a secondary source.

Lets not confuse things; a published edition or translation is a primary source; a personal translation is not verifiable and seems close to original research. To clarivy, I'm adding the word published to my draft.--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Independence

Resolved

... Yaris678 (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yaris. You seem to have a special concern with the issue of independent sources. The issue had never been important to me and I'm not certain where you're coming from. Could you give us a paragraph or two to spell out your thoughts on that issue. Thanks, SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Independence is important to establish notability. If I write a work of fiction, and then write a press release saying how great it is, that press release doesn't establish the notability of the work. A review in a national newspaper would. We also have to be more suspect about any claims made in my press release than in the newspaper. I guess this all goes back to Blueboar's comment of 21:58 on 27 December 2009, but maybe we (i.e. I) shouldn't obssess about it here, so long as a link to WP:N is provided at some point. Yaris678 (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, thinking about it... maybe it is a bit deeper than that. As the term is used in science, a secondary source would be something like a meta analysis or a literature review, which is preferable to a primary source, because it takes several primary sources into consideration. I take it that is note the definition we are using here but it is nonetheless something valuable. In fact, secondary sources, as the term is used in science is closer to the concept of independent sources in Wikipedia. Perhaps this is where I am getting confused, if getting confused is the right term. Maybe something should be said on this, but I'm not sure what. Yaris678 (talk) 11:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about a simple statement that "appearance in meta analyses or other survey sources are valuable indicators of notability." -- As I wrote that, it seemed to be moving away from the topic into the issue of notability, when the purpose of this essay is to spell out the Wikipedia meaning and significance of Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary sources. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading what you have said, I realise that the issue isn't just notability, it is WP:WEIGHT. We can give more weight to a literature review than to a "primary" source (as the term is used in science) since it takes many (hopefully, all relevant) primary sources into account. A meta-analysis is a statistical collation of the results from several different primary sources and hence is designed to weight all those sources correctly and come up with one overall conclusion. If we base an article on published, reliable reviews and meta-analyses then it will be better than if we base it on "primary" sources. Of course, such things aren't always available or necessary for everything that should go into an article... But it should be an aim to use such "secondary" sources as much as possible. Yaris678 (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just thought of an article which highlights this issue very well. It is a bit of an odd article and I have some issues with is, but take a look at "Scientific opinion on climate change". This article states up front that it is based on synthesis reports and position papers by leading scientific bodies. It is quite easy to find papers that show evidence for various things to do with climate change, but the synthesis reports try to look at a whole collection of evidence, assess it and come to an overall conclusion. If you look at the article on global warming, the general thrust of the article is as per reliable synthesis reports (e.g. by the IPCC) but some specific pieces of evidence are discussed. Yaris678 (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Think I have sorted this one out with recent edits - both the importance of secondary publications and my previous obsession with independence. Yaris678 (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Context

Resolved

... by adding a section on context and categorisation. Yaris678 (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The literature often points out that the distinction between primary and secondary sources is not absolute, but depends on the nature of the article we are writing. If we are writing an article on medieval history, a school text on the subject is a secondary source. If we are writing an article on teaching in the secondary schools, that same textbook would become a primary source for that purpose. This may not be the best example for Wikipedia but something of that sort is called for, probably in the section on Complex source categorisation.

Suggestions please. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Another example would be two different articles about Newtonian physics. If we are writing about the motion of macroscopic bodies then Principia is a secondary source - it is a work of analysis, rather than experimental results. If we are writing about how the subject "physics" changed under Newton then Principia is a primary source.

I would probably discuss this in its own section, perhaps called "Context and categorisation" (although that does sound like a novel by Jane Austen).

Yaris678 (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another example: An article on a historical event, such as the Battle of the Boyne in the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, or indeed Wikipedia, is a tertiary source, unless we are concerned with Historiography, in which case it is a primary source. Yaris678 (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've come up with a really good example. A book review! Consider the review of The Slave Community, which appeared in the Washington Post on 15th October 1973. This would normally be considered to be a secondary source, as indeed it would be if you were writing an article about the book The Slave Community, or its author, John Wesley Blassingame. However, if you were writing an article on the Washington Post, or the author of the review, Carl Neumann Degler, the review would be a primary source.

You can imagine how someone might make a statement in the article on the Washington Post, based on original analysis of the review such as "Since at least 1973, The Washington Post has seen America's slave-holding past as a source of great shame for the country. (ref review by Degler)". Whether this can be got across coherently and concisely in the guideline is another thing.

Yaris678 (talk) 15:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one that is similar, but possibly easier to get across. The summary for policy makers from the IPCC is a secondary source for the article Global warming but it would be a primary source if used for the article Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In fact, although the summary report is linked from the current version of the IPCC article, this is just as an external link, rather than a source for any claim. (I wouldn't mention the last bit in the guideline as it could change.) Yaris678 (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added a section on this to the draft. I think that has sorted it. Yaris678 (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary Sources

Resolved

...By adding some examples and pointing out that it depends on context. Yaris678 (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal contains a lot of info on primary sources, and some of tertiary, but very little on secondary sources, which are referenced earlier in the guideline to be the preferred sources for WP. I'd suggest expanding the secondary sources with examples (for instance, a newspaper article, etc.) and maybe a more thorough definition of secondary sources. Angryapathy (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! I have added a few examples. This may require some modification/addition. Yaris678 (talk) 15:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Complex sources & fiction

Resolved

...By giving an example of a complex source in the context of fiction and adding the section grey areas. Yaris678 (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This should also give some examples related to fiction as this often comes up (see WT:FICT) to describe what the difference from a primary source (the work) is and related works that may appear on the same piece of media or by the same publisher. Stuff like: behind the scenes commentary on a movie on the DVD; audio commentary dubbed over the original audio while watching the movie on DVD; character guides by the author for a popular video game series; etc.陣内 _Jinnai 04:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I have added some words on the subject.

I checked the link to WT:FICT. I notice people are talking about secondary sources a lot in relation to notability. This has made me think about #Fitting in PSTS and Notability again. I had thought that we were in danger of saying too much on the subject on this page and a link to WP:N is sufficient. Perhaps the best thing is to provide a section on notability (as I originally suggested) and that allows the space to talk about the subject intelligently. Yaris678 (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just added a section on Notability. If anyone wants to expand or edit it, go ahead. Yaris678 (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looked at both sections. I think you may want to clarify for the character guides (as there are debates whether those are primary sources or secondary sources). As for notability, I think that's fine, but you should still note that while primary sources cannot show notability, not all articles need to show notability, specifically lists, but all articles need to be verifiable which requires at least one non-primary source.陣内 _Jinnai 17:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see character guides might be a grey area. It is pretty obviously secondary if there is a single primary source, such as a single novel or film. But if an author has written many novels with the same characters and has also written a character guide, and the topic of the article is more than just one of the novels... then I can see that the character guide could be seen as a primary source.

What is the issue anyway? I couldn't see anything mentioned on WT:FICT or WP:FICT. If the issue is notability then it doesn't really matter if you call it primary or secondary because it obviously isn't independent if it is written by the same author (or produced by the same film company or whatever). If the issue is WP:NOR then I would argue that it doesn't actually matter, so long as people use their brains. The fact that it is easier to inadvertently produce OR from primary sources doesn't mean that something citing primary sources is automatically OR and it doesn't mean that something citing secondary sources is automatically not OR. If someone ends up in an argument about whether something is primary or secondary then I would suggest that both parties agree to forget about that and concentrate on whether or not there is any OR.

Is this the sort of issue you are talking about, or am I heading off in the wrong direction? Yaris678 (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I think character guides (and the like) need specific mention. Maybe more discussion is needed on them.

The issue is basically whether character guides could be used with the director commentary on them to show "real-world information" in the form of character conception and whether or not they would be considered both "independent" and "secondary sources" (there is debate as to what "independent" and "secondary" means in regard to fiction because except for extreme cases there is rarely anything wholly independent or wholly biased for making extra profit.

FE: A blog post by the author of a series of novels about how he was inspired to design a particular character; an interview lead editor of a magazine commenting on how they went about helping work with the author to develop a particular magazine; or the commentary of the lead animator on how his work on a particular character has affected other notable non-related projects, artists, etc.陣内 _Jinnai 00:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm... yes... there are different views on the independence of sources. This is why there isn’t a guideline on it yet. There is, however, two essays, which I have linked to from the notability section. I don’t want to go deeper into it than that here because I am trying to make a guideline. If we include things which are only essay status then it is less likely to be accepted as a guideline.

I think if the guideline talked through every grey area it could easily get bogged down. It could also give the impression that some things are in grey areas when they are not, and hence make it even more complicated for people to interpret. Perhaps it would be a good idea to give guidance on how to deal with grey areas. This would be along the lines of my comment above – i.e. Don’t worry about whether it is primary or secondary. Discuss whether there is any original research going on and/or to what extent the source is independent.

Yaris678 (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea and I don't want it to get bogged down in defining what is "independant" as that doesn't appear to be within this proposal's scope. However, what is primary and secondary is; and in this case it probably needs to be addressed because there is no clear definition and there are 2 outstanding arbcom decisions to make WP:FICT viable for both those who want to include more ant those who don't. Anything that can help clear that up especially for characters and episodes which are the most contriviersial would help.

That's why in this particular case adressing directly charater guides (or rather any type similar guide like a guidebook to a world) is needed.陣内 _Jinnai 05:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FICT is a notability guideline so surely independence of sources is the most important thing. Of course there is a debate between inclusionists and exclusionists but is this really the place to sort that one out?

Can you point me in the direction of the arbcom decisions and explain the different ways they are being interpreted?

Yaris678 (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 2 cases are Episodes and characters 1 and the Workshop + Episodes and characters 2 and the Workshop. These 2 elements, characters and episodes, are among those of what WP:FICT seeks to regulate the inclusion by Wikipedia of as separate articles and those 2 are the most contentious. Some background follows:

Wall of text follows

There have been pushes by both sides toward one extreme or another without any bottom line to compromise and it comes down to those 2 specific elements: characters and episodes; it is believed by inclusionits for such elements that the GNG was never designed to handle elements within a fictional world properly because it was designed to deal with more tangible subjects like someone's pet dog or a fringe scientific theory; it also far more heavily weighs on academic studies for trivial 1-line characters and the like in famous works from the past because of the need to publish or perish mentality. These elements that get such scholarly review improperly inflate their importance to the work while more modern works need to become the level of popularity of something like Harry Potter or Pokemon. Even when they do get such non-scholarly coverage it will necessarily be minor in almost every circumstance because it comes from people posting about reading the book, however it can be that such minor coverage could come from enough reliable sources to make them clear their importance is notable (there is a distiction made between minor and trivial by some).

The more exclusionist side argues that the GNG application is fine; there is no need to do anything except strengthen it so that even less separate articles on indivisual characters and episodes can occur. They have largely ignored the problems posed by the inclusionsts with regard to the publish-or-perish problem that results in trivial characters from older works getting massive coverage pointing back to the fact the GNG is the arbitor here that should decide it and if it says so, then its fine for them to have a seperate article. They also say a blanket pass for any type episode or character getting their own article wouldn't pass an AfD and thus they say that the GNG is the best and only determinate; that anything short of that should not exist.

Recently there was discussion and an RfC on using awards for characters and episodes as a sort of compromise, but nothing came of it because it was difficult to determine what kind of award would substantiate it because such well-known awards tend to be only well-known by those who are interested in the various (sub-)genres.

Where the relevance of "secondary sources" comes into play is that character guides were one of those that were proposed to be secondary sources, not primary, and that the use to show creative commentary would suffice with the "real-world information" that WP:NOTPLOT demands and the need to show it through independent secondary sources. The inclusionists argue they are both and the exclusionist argue they are neither. The problem also comes from whether they are independent enough from the source and there is no clear consensus because one side argues they are and the "profit motive" is so minimal in 99% of the cases as to be irrelevant while the other side requires it have scholarly review or news coverage that is significant. The problem is that "signifigant" is not clearly defined and for characters and episodes that is a core problem because when characters may get some treatment it is usually 1-2 lines of commentary that is clearly more than trivial, ie "John was the best character in the book." or "Episode thirteen was the best episode on the DVD." to being actual critical analysis of such, but as they are reviewing the work, they cannot usually spend time on indivisual characters or episodes.

So basically the armbom punted the decision on characters and episodes, except for TTN specifically, to the community telling us "find a compromise" and the community cannot. Maybe someone can work on defining what is independent as well that can be at least a guideline instead of an essay.陣内 _Jinnai 18:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(removed indent)

Thanks for that. I feel that I have a good understanding of the discussions going on.

I don't think this is the right place to try to resolve this one. Even if we tried, it would end up with people arguing over this guideline when really they should be arguing over the notability guidelines.

I have some thoughts on the subject of notability but I won't go into it too much here because that's not really what this particular talk page is about. Maybe I will write an essay on it at some point...

What I will say for now though is that I agree with you that it would help if there was a guideline on the independence of sources. Of course, a guideline requires consensus so maybe that won't be happening for a while.

Any thoughts on the section I added on grey areas?

Yaris678 (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall good. I would suggest using the character guide as an example unless you have something better. I'd also suggest about the part of whether its independent or not to note there are grey areas.陣内 _Jinnai 04:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not use a potentially-controversial example in this section. I would probably conclude by saying "a character guide is almost always secondary and almost never independent." But that would annoy the inclusionists and we couldn't discuss it with them on any commonly-agreed basis because there is no guideline on independence. I think referring to the fact of area-specific guidelines allows for the possibility that this one will be cleared up if and when WP:Notability (fiction) is agreed upon. I also think it is enough of a reference to any further grey area. Remember that, in the section on notability, I have also implied that independence is, to a certain extent, a matter of opinion. Yaris678 (talk) 07:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could say "character guides are an example of a one such controversial source with arguments on both sides." or something like that. It's a totally neutral statement.陣内 _Jinnai 20:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, in most instances, character guides are secondary sources so I couldn't really use that example without giving a lot of extra information, which would just get in the way of the general thrust. Yaris678 (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]