Wikipedia:Identifying and using tertiary sources: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) hyphen |
SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) m link |
||
Line 61:
'''Controversial material:''' Any controversial, alleged fact is essentially unsourced if the only citation it has is to a tertiary source of questionable reliability (on the particular point or generally). As with secondary sources, this can happen for any number of reasons, including source obsolescence, lack of subject-matter expertise, conflict of interest, simple error, or presentation of a [[WP:FRINGE|fringe]] idea as comparable to the generally accepted view, among other problems that can arise with a particular source. A tertiary source that is a compendium of factoids by an author with no known expertise, and which indicates nothing about the sources of its own information, is not a reliable source. Anyone could compile a large book of alleged facts, anecdotes, and folklore about any given topic, and probably find a willing publisher, without any fact-checking ever taking place. Note however that not all facts about a controversial subject are themselves controversial; there is no principle that a reliable tertiary source good enough for one article is not good enough for another because of the topic's notoriety, the amount of emotion editors bring to editing it, or the frequency with which our article on it is vandalized.
'''Complex or controversial comparisons:''' Comparative use of tertiary sources can be fraught with problems relating to [[WP:Undue weight|undue weight]], [[WP:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]], [[WP:SYNTH|novel synthesis]], and basic [[WP:Verifiability|accuracy]] if the things being compared are subject to real-world contention, or are complex in nature. For example, a comparison between Christian, Judaic, and Muslim concepts of God is unlikely to produce encyclopedic results if based in whole or part on tertiary sources, which are likely to present a poorly nuanced view of complex theological questions and details of interpretation. Complex comparative work must actually be done in secondary sources cited by Wikipedia for those comparisons. The [[WP:AEIS]] policy does not permit Wikipedians themselves to engage in substantive "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis" of facts or sources.
'''Over-inclusive works:''' [[WP:Independent sources#Indiscriminate sources|Indiscriminate sources]] must be considered skeptically when determining both [[WP:Notability|notability]] and [[WP:Undue weight|due weight]]. Unfortunately, a large proportion of tertiary sources are indiscriminate. A guidebook that attempts to describe every restaurant in a city cannot reasonably help establish that a particular restaurant is notable. An index of every paper published about a topic in a given year tells us nothing about the critical reception of any given paper. The more inclusive, comprehensive, even "complete" that a work aims to be, the less useful it is for determining the notability of any subject it mentions. On the up side, the more comprehensive a work is, the more likely Wikipedia editors are to find reliable details in it about any subject within its purview. Thus, in a selection of tertiary sources for a topic, the source that is most reliable for [[WP:Verifiability]] purposes has a tendency to be the least valuable for notability and due weight analysis. The inverse is often not true; an exclusively selective, non-comprehensive source may well be very unreliable, too, simply because it was poorly researched and reflects a superficial, popular-opinion approach to its topic, as is often the case with coffee table books.
| |||