Wikipedia:Identifying and using tertiary sources: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 09:06, 9 November 2018

Revision as of 16:17, 12 November 2018

Line 7:

{{shortcut|WP:IDTERTIARY}}

There are many types of {{em|typically}} tertiary sources:

* [[Encyclopedia]]s, [[Dictionary|dictionaries]], [[Encyclopedic dictionary|encyclopedic dictionaries]], and [[Compendium|compendia]], (whether general or topical). These are often, but not always, high-quality and reliable sources (compendia are the least likely to be acceptable).

* "[[Coffee table book]]s" and [https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/6486.Best_Bathroom_Books "bathroom books"]. These are low-quality and presumptively unreliable.

* School [[textbooks]], especially below the graduate -school level. If they are below the university level, they are treated as categorically unreliable by Wikipedia.

* [[Bibliographies|Bibliographies]] and [[Bibliographic index|indexes]], [[Concordance (publishing)|concordances]], [[Thesaurus|thesauri]], [[database]]s, [[almanac]]s, [[guide book|travel guides]], [[field guide]]s, [[timelines]], and similar works. Quality varies widely.

* [[Abstract (summary)|Abstracts]] of journal articles, legislation, etc., provided by indexing services and specialized search engines. Low-quality sources. May be reliable enough for basics in some cases, depending on reputability of the publisher. The abstract included atop a journal article and written by its own authors is a primary, not tertiary source.

Some of the above kinds of tertiary sources are considered forms of [[secondary literature]] in some disciplines, but {{em|remain tertiary}} (for most of their content) for Wikipedia's purposes including in those disciplines. Not understanding this is a common error by subject-matter experts new to Wikipedia editing.