Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:21, 26 August 2023

Revision as of 15:03, 30 August 2023

Line 105:

* '''An article about a film:''' The film itself is an acceptable primary source for information about the plot and the names of the characters. A Wikipedian cannot use the film as a source for claims about the film's themes, importance to the film genre, or other matters that require critical analysis or interpretation.

* '''Providing an original illustration''' Suppose that a Wikimedia contributor inserts a photograph or other media file to illustrate a Wikipedia article on a person, place, or other topic. Editors who do this routinely assert that the photograph depicts the subject of the article. The Wikimedia community [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assumes good faith]] that the illustration really depicts the thing. For example, it is not necessary to provide other pictures of a person or place as supporting evidence that a photo insertion into Wikipedia is what the content provider claims that it is, except in the case of a dispute. Creating a photo and uploading it for use in Wikimedia projects is an act of creating a primary source without third-party publishing and review by any established authority.

* '''An article about a painting:''' The painting itself is an acceptable primary source for information about the colors, shapes, and figures in the painting. Any person with the relevant knowledge and abilitiesability can look at Georgia O'Keeffe's ''[[Cow's Skull: Red, White, and Blue]]'', and see that it is a painting of a cow's skull on a background of red, white, and blue. It is not an acceptable source for claims about the artist's motivation, allusions or relationships to other works, the meaning of the figures in the painting, or any other matters of analysis, interpretation, or evaluation: Looking at the painting does not tell anyone why the artist chose these colors, whether she meant to evoke religious or patriotic sentiments, or what motivated the composition.

* '''An article about a person:''' The person's [[autobiography]], own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary{{ref|1|‡}} source for information about what the person says about themself. Such primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person and for [[WP:INTEXT|clearly attributed]] controversial statements. Many other primary sources, including [[birth certificate]]s, the [[Social Security Death Index]], and court documents, are usually not acceptable primary sources, because it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name.

* '''An article about a business:''' The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary{{ref|1|‡}} source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities. It is not likely to be an acceptable source for most claims about how it or its products compare to similar companies and their products (e.g., "OurCo's Foo is better than Brand X"), although it will be acceptable for some simple, objective descriptions of the organization including annual revenue, number of staff, physical ___location of headquarters, and status as a parent or subsidiary organization to another. It is never an acceptable source for claims that evaluate or analyze the company or its actions, such as an analysis of its marketing strategies (e.g., "OurCo's sponsorship of National Breast Cancer Month is an effective tool in expanding sales to middle-aged, middle-class American women").