Content deleted Content added
SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) ce |
SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) →See also: MOS:DLIST - don't abuse description-list markup to create fake subheadings. Just use boldface. |
||
| (13 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{
{{Wikipedia how to|WP:SOURCEMINE|WP:MINE}}
{{Nutshell|Sources are rarely plundered for all they are worth, and articles with "citation needed" tags often already have sufficient sources that simply have been under-utilized. Most new sources added for a detail or two can also be dug into for additional sourcing value.}}
[[File:Underground Mining team.jpg|thumb|Mining information requires the right reliable source and lots of hard work.|300x300px]]
It is very common for Wikipedia editors to add a [[WP:CITE|citation]], such as to a newspaper or magazine article, a book chapter, or other hopefully [[WP:RS|reliable]] publication, to [[WP:V|source the verifiability]] of a single fact in an article. Most often the editor has found this source via a search engine, or perhaps even a library visit, seeking a source for a detail in an article, some pesky tidbit without a citation. This common approach tends to miss many opportunities to improve both the content and the sourcing of articles; it's akin to stopping at a grocery store for bread and nothing else, rather than "working" the store for an hour with a long shopping list and an eye for bargains.
This tutorial offers a very short but real-world example of how to "mine" a source– to really work it like a
==Example article==
Line 20:
|publisher=Everett & Co
|___location=London, England
|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=2yBIAAAAIAAJ
|accessdate=2011-11-18
}}</ref></p></blockquote>
Line 29:
==Mining this source for all it's worth==
It is tempting to simply skim this source and edit the article for a point or two and move on, but it's quite easy to miss something (indeed, the fact that Manx cats were thought of by Barton as scarce and possibly even declining was missed until preparation of this essay). It is best to '''make a list of facts''' (e.g. in a sandbox page or a text editor), in wiki markup and in
* The Manx's ultimate origin is unknown. [It was as of 1908, and still is now according to other sources, but genetic study could change that at any time.]
Line 46:
*Manx also have long back legs. [Other sources say this, but it's nice to have another {{em|period}} source indicate it was an early, natural trait, not the result of later, e.g. American, breeding.]
*With short or no tail and long legs they thus have a rabbit-like rear half. [Lane and others said this too, but it's nice to have another early source indicating this was always the case, and always the perception.]
*Manx are of any coat color. [In the context, this can only mean any coat color normal for a European cat; the cat fancy at that time did not extend further, and it obviously cannot include [[point coloration]]
*Black was the most common color of the original, native Manx breed being written about at the turn of the last century, before controlled breeding of cats became a big deal. [Lane corroborates. We also have tentative info from another source, not yet in the article, that this may actually no longer be true even on the IoM, but once was.]
*Barton is actually quite hostile to the breed, and his derogatory remarks are worth quoting directly in full. [They're a sharp counterpoint to Lane's enthusiasm (he owned one of the earliest championship Manx show cats), and are the earliest on-record cat expert hostility toward the breed. It's good to have this viewpoint balance for countering possible [[WP:Undue weight]] resulting from Lane's favoritism. This is a theme that actually carries through to the current day, and will soon be its own "Controversy" section in the article. This short little Barton piece is even more important than it seemed!]
Line 64:
* The work is a specialist piece by an expert on a particular topic, but the detail you wish to use is from a completely different field, and the author, with no credentials in that field, doesn't provide a source. This arises frequently in non-fiction books. Look for corroborating material from actual experts in that other discipline.
* The claim you want to cite is a novel conclusion reached by the author of the piece; this makes it a primary source for that claim. In [[Peer review|peer-reviewed]] journals, such material mostly takes the form of the newly-collected data and results/conclusions material in the article or paper (and the summary of this material in the abstract); there may be many pages of secondary-source material leading up to and supporting it. Primary research is often provisionally cited in Wikipedia, with attribution (e.g. to the author, the research team, or to the paper); a secondary source should also be provided when available, as primary claims are always suspect – current research is constantly being overturned by newer research. For science material, the usual secondary source is a [[literature review]]. We like to have both, because secondary sources indicate acceptance by other experts and are more understandable by more readers, while primary ones provide details and are especially useful to university students and experts using Wikipedia.
* The item you want to use is a subjective opinion. You may still be able to use it, as a primary source, if you attribute the claim directly, either to the author(s) of the piece you are citing (if notable, e.g., "According to Jane Q. McPublic ..."), or to its publisher (e.g., "According to a 2017 ''New York Times'' article ..."). If neither are notable, are you sure the source is actually [[WP:RS|reliable at all]]? Primary-source opinion pieces take many forms, including editorials and op-eds, advice columns, book and film reviews, press releases, position statements, speeches, autobiographical content, interviews, legal testimony, marketing or activism materials, and overly personalized instances of investigative journalism. Such content often appears in publications that otherwise provide the kinds of secondary-source material on which Wikipedia mostly relies, such as newspapers.
* The work is outdated and does not reflect current expert consensus about the matter at hand. In such a case, the newer sourcing should be used. Include the contrary viewpoint, attributed to its author, only if it seems pertinent to continue including it (e.g. to highlight a controversy, or to cover changing views of the topic over time). A general rule of thumb in research is that very old sources, or sources close in time to an event (i.e. "old" after a few months have passed and more analysis has been done by other writers) should be treated as if they are primary sources like eye-witness accounts and opinion pieces.
* The work is a tertiary source, like a topical encyclopedia, [[coffee-table book]], or other conglomeration and summarization of material from numerous other sources. Such works are often not written by experts, contain material that is already obsolete by the time the work is published, gloss over important distinctions and limitations in previously published research conclusions, and may reflect a strong editorial bias. Tertiary sources are better than no sources, but they do not stand up to challenge from secondary ones.
Line 73:
== See also ==
* [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]
* [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]
* [[Wikipedia:No original research]]
* [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]]
* [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources]]
'''Essays
* [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources checklist]]
* [[Wikipedia:Cherrypicking]]
Line 89 ⟶ 92:
[[Category:Wikipedia sources]]
[[Category:Wikipedia essays about editing]]
[[Category:Wikipedia essays
| |||