Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Reverted edits by 2600:1006:B182:D119:D189:90BE:A0F0:12B8 (talk) (HG) (3.4.12) |
WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) →"Secondary" does not mean "good": Expanding on "appropriate" sources |
||
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 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.
|