Wikipedia:Identifying and using tertiary sources: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) →Exceptions: restoring a point from the footnote I nuked |
SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) →Determining reliability: clarify |
||
Line 33:
== Determining reliability ==
{{Main|Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources}}{{Shortcut|WP:RSTERTIARY|WP:TERTIARYRS}}
Reliability of a tertiary source is principally determined by four factors: whether its producers (i.e. writers and/or editors) have subject-matter expertise, whether the underlying original sources of the non-novel material are clear, whether its producers are independent of the subject, and whether the work is generally regarded as reliable by others in the field in question (primarily a matter of authorial and publisher reputability). These factors counterbalance each other. For example, while typical mainstream dictionaries do not cite sources for specific entries, how authoritative they are considered can be gleaned from independent reviews of their content and editorial practices. Many tertiary works only cite sources in a general way, e.g. a bibliography. Beware tertiary works that have no indication of their own sources at all.
Another factor to consider with tertiary sources is they are often more error-prone than secondary sources, especially the more comprehensive they are. A database of millions of pieces of biographical data, each often taken from a single original primary source and added by a stressed and bored data-entry operator, is less likely to have gotten a particular individual's birth date correct than a book (secondary source) written about that person, drawing on multiple sources.
| |||