Revision as of 00:10, 10 May 2011 edit Blueboar (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 53,903 edits →How to classify a source: adding a few more examples ← Previous edit		Revision as of 07:19, 10 May 2011 edit undo Wtmitchell (talk \| contribs) Administrators 147,349 edits →"Secondary" is not another way to spell "good": Attempted improvement, following on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research&curid=432926&diff=428337387&oldid=428232983 this invitation]. Next edit →
Line 50: "Secondary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "good" or "reliable" or "useable". Secondary '''does not''' mean that the source is [[WP:INDY\|independent]], authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, or published by a reputable publisher. Secondary sources can be unreliable, biased, and self-published. According to our [[:Category:Wikipedia content ~~policies~~guidelines\|content guideline]] on [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources\|identifying reliable sources]], a reliable source has the following characteristics: * It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources: Difference between revisions