Wikipedia talk:Identifying and using tertiary sources: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:55, 29 May 2015

Revision as of 05:48, 4 June 2015

Line 27:

::::On the other point, the policy emphatically says {{em|twice}} that such analytic claims have to come from secondary sources (I didn't notice this the first time around). The second instance is at [[WP:PSTS]]: '{{tq|All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source}}, and this comes immediately after mention of tertiary sources: '{{tq|Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources.}}' So, there is no confusion between or commingling of secondary and tertiary sources in the policy. Tertiary are good enough for helping to establish notability, but only secondary are good enough (it said so two times) for "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims". It's very rare for a WP policy to say the same thing twice, so clearly this is meant to be taken seriously. "''Assumed''" to be "published in" isn't the same as "referenced to" a secondary source, which is what WP:PSTS says more restrictively. But even if both lines used "published in" wording, I'm absolutely certain the interpretation that we can just assume such publication would not have been upheld, e.g. at an RfC. It's just poor wording in one spot, meanwhile it's very clear that everything in the policy is about citing sources not assuming they may exist somewhere. Your WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT point takes us right back to the previous paragraph: If a usually-tertiary source actually has any "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims" that we're using, then it {{em|is}} a secondary source; we're not citing a tertiary source as if it were secondary, we're citing secondary source material directly, that just happens to be surrounded by tertiary material in the same publication. PS: By defining all reliable tertiary sources as those which summarize the analysis and evaluation of reliable secondary sources (you said we can "assume" this), your conditional, '{{tq|a "tertiary" source '''can''' be cited for analysis and evaluation per NOR [...] where it is summarizing the analysis and evaluation of reliable secondary sources}}', would automatically qualify {{em|every}} reliable tertiary source (i.e., the only tertiary sources acceptable on WP, since we don't allow unreliable sources). Thus, it would directly equate reliable tertiary and secondary sources, which the policy obviously does not do. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 01:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

== Tertiary sources & the ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' ==

This essay touches on something that I've thought about ever since I wrote [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-11-22/Book_review this book review] about four and ahalf years ago: for the purposes of Wikipedia, the ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' is not a reliable source -- with a few exceptions. The bottom line is that most of the articles are created in much the same way articles in Wikipedia are created: an anonymous writer of unknown skill &/or expertise does research from primary & secondary sources on a subject, & after minimal editorial review it is published. And because an encyclopedia has a financial incentive to make as few revisions to an article as possible -- the less labor expended on a product the more money it will generate -- the article may not be revised again for the indefinite future. So one could say that where an article in Wikipedia has the possibility of improving, or at least changing, articles in the ''EB'' are more likely to ungracefully degrade -- only without any way for an unsophisticated reader to determine it has degraded.

The major exception to this untrustworthiness are signed articles -- articles identified as being written by recognized experts. Some encyclopedias are written entirely by experts, but the ''EB'' only has a few. Because these contain expert opinions on the subject, they really aren't tertiary sources; these can be considered secondary sources. Their reliability can be evaluated in a somewhat objective manner, based on the writer's reputation & when the article was written.

That's my take on using the ''EB'' as a reliable source. Not all Wikipedia articles are as reliable as their ''EB'' counterparts, but many Wikipedia articles include abundant references unlike their ''EB'' counterparts. Wikipedia articles have a more easily determined reliability -- either good or bad -- than do ''EB'' articles. So why should we cite articles whose reliability cannot be measured? -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|talk]]) 05:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)