Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:28, 25 October 2023

Latest revision as of 23:00, 22 August 2025

(19 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Supplement|pages=[[Wikipedia:No original research]]'s [[Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources|Primary, secondary and tertiary sources]] subsection|shortcut=WP:USEPRIMARY|WP:PRIMARYUSE}}

'''Identifying and using primary sources''' requires careful thought and some extra knowledge on the part of Wikipedia's editors.

Line 29:

* a proclamation of victory written at the time of the conquest,

* a diary written by someone who lived at the time and talks about it,

* a book written 150 years later, that analyzes the proclamation,

* an academic journal article written two years ago that examines the diary, and

* an encyclopedia entry written last year, based on both the book and the journal.

Both the proclamation and the diary are [[primary source]]s. These primary sources have advantages: they were written at the time, and so are free of the opinions and fictions imposed by later generations. They also have disadvantages: the proclamation mightmay contain [[propaganda]] designed to pacify the conquered country, or omit politically inconvenient facts, or overstate the importance of other facts, or be designed to stroke the new ruler's ego. The diary will reflect the prejudices of its author, and its author might be unaware of relevant facts.

The book and the journal article are [[secondary source]]s. These secondary sources have advantages: The authors were not involved in the event, so they have the emotional distance that allows them to analyze the events dispassionately. They also have disadvantages: In some topic areas the authors are writing about what other people said happened and cannot use their own experience to correct any errors or omissions. The authors may be unable to see clearly through their own cultural lens, and the result may be that they unconsciously emphasize things important to their cultures and times, while overlooking things important to the actual actors.

Line 84:

* It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

* It is [[Wikipedia:Published|published]] by a reputable publishing house, rather than by the author(s).

* It is "appropriate for the material in question". An appropriate source should be directly about the subject, rather than mentioning something unrelated in passing (e.g., ''not'' a book about Shakespeare's sonnets that happens to mention a modern cancer prevalence statistic). If the claim in question is scholarly, then scholarly sources from a relevant or related field are appropriate; if the claim is about business news, then a business news source is appropriate; if the claim is about people, then biographies of them are appropriate. A variety of source types will be appropriate for most articles, and the type of source appropriate in one part of an article may be different from the type of source that is appropriate for a different part of the article.

* It is "appropriate for the material in question", i.e., the source is directly about the subject, rather than mentioning something unrelated in passing.

* It is a third-party or independent source, with no significant financial or other [[conflict of interest]].

* It has a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as [[editor]]ial oversight or [[peer review]] processes.

Line 92:

==="Primary" does not mean "bad"===

{{shortcut|WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD}}

"Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primaryPrimary sources arecan not fullybe independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and/or published by a reputable publisher.

Primary sources {{em|can}} be [[WP:Identifying reliable sources|reliable]], and they {{em|can}} be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct [[WP:Manual of Style#Quotations|quotation]]. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources.

Line 118:

==Are news-reporting media secondary or primary sources?==

{{shortcut|WP:PRIMARYNEWS|WP:SECONDARYNEWS}}

The term "news-reporting media" is used here in the sense of actual [[newspaper|newspapers]] and other media reporting news in a manner similar to newspapers.