Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:46, 10 May 2011

Revision as of 04:33, 24 May 2011

Line 18:

Imagine that an army conquered a small country 200 years ago, and you have the following sources:

* a proclamation of victory written at the time of the conquest,

* a diary written by someone who lived at the time and talks about it,

* a book written 150 years later, that analyzes the proclamation,

* an academic journal article written two years ago that examines the diary, and

* an encyclopedia entry written last year, that is based on both the book and the journal.

Both the proclamation and the diary are [[primary source]]s. These primary sources have advantages: they were written at the time, and so are free of the opinions and fictions imposed by later generations. They also have disadvantages: the proclemationproclamation might contain [[propaganda]] designed to pacify the conquered country, or omit politically inconvenient facts, or overstate the importance of other facts, or be designed to stroke the new ruler's ego. The diary will reflect the prejudices of its author, and its author might be unaware of relevant facts.

The book and the Journaljournal article are a [[secondary source]]s. These secondary sources have advantages: The authors were not involved in the event, so they have the emotional distance that allows them to analyze the events dispassionately. They also have disadvantages: The authors are writing about what other people said happened, and cannot use their own experience to correct any errors or omissions. The authors may be unable to see clearly through their own cultural lens, and the result may be that they unconsciously emphasizes things important to their cultures and times, while overlooking things important to the actual actors.

The encyclopedia article is a [[tertiary source]]. It has advantages: it summarizes information. It also has disadvantages: in relying on the secondary source, the encyclopedia article will repeat, and may accidentally amplify, any distortions or errors in that source. It may also add its own interpretation.

This sort of simple example is what the source classification system was intended to deal with. It has, however, been stretched to cover much more complicated situations.

===Uses in fields other than history===

In science, data is primary, and the first publication of any idea or experimental result is always a primary source. [[Narrative review]]s, [[systematic review]]s and [[meta-analyses]] are considered secondary sources, because they are based on ''and analyze or interpret'' (rather than merely citing) these original experimental reports.

===Not a matter of counting the number of links in the chain===

Line 37 ⟶ 40:

It's not a matter of counting up the number of sources in a chain. The first published source is always a primary source, but it is possible to have dozens of sources, without having any secondary or tertiary sources. If Alice writes down an idea, and Bob simply quotes her work, and Chris refers Bob's quotation, and Daisy cites Chris, and so forth, you very likely have a string of primary sources, rather than one primary, one secondary, one tertiary, and all subsequent sources with made-up classification names.

===Uses in fields other than history===

In science, data is primary, and the first publication of any idea or experimental result is always a primary source. [[Narrative review]]s, [[systematic review]]s and [[meta-analyses]] are considered secondary sources, because they are based on ''and analyze or interpret'' (rather than merely citing) these original experimental reports.

===All sources are primary for something===

Line 48:

=="Secondary" is not another way to spell "good"==

"Secondary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "good" or "reliable" or "useableusable". 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 guidelines|content guideline]] on [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|identifying reliable sources]], a reliable source has the following characteristics:

Line 59:

A primary source can have all of these qualities, and a secondary source may have none of them.

==="PrmaryPrimary" is not another way to spell "bad"===

"Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While Primary sources are usually not independent, they can be authorativeauthoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control and published by a reputable publisher. Primary sources ''can'' be reliable, and they ''can'' be used... its just thatHowever, there are limitations in what theyprimary sources can be used ''for''.

==You are allowed to use primary sources... carefully==

Line 69 ⟶ 70:

One rough rule of thumb for identifying primary sources is this: if the source is noticeably closer to the event than you are, then it's a primary source. For example, if an event occurred on January 1, 1800, and a newspaper article appears about it the next day, then Wikipedia (and all historians) considers the newspaper article a primary source.

However, Wikipedia fairly often writes about current events. As a result, an event may happen on Monday afternoon, may be written about in Tuesday morningsmorning's newspapers, and may be added to Wikipedia just minutes later. Many editors—especially those with no training in historiography—call these newspaper articles "secondary sources", by which they mean "please don't delete this article" sources.

Typically, very recent newspaper articles are mis-labeled as a "secondary source" during AFDs, by way of trying to finesse [[WP:GNG|the general notability guideline's]] requirement that secondary sources exist, when no true secondary sources actually exist. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find true secondary sources for [[WP:MILL|run-of-the-mill events]]. Typically, editors are willing to overlook this error for recent events. However, once a couple of years have passed, if no true secondary sources can be found, the article is usually deleted.