Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→"Primary" does not mean "bad": "and" => "or" (the possibilities are not cumulative) |
→"Primary" does not mean "bad": This is meant to be “all of the above”… so “and” is correct. Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
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 primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control,
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.
| |||