Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:24, 2 January 2008

The following is a proposed Misplaced Pages policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption.

Shortcuts ] WP:EVALUATE

This page in a nutshell: When using primary sources, editors should stick to describing what the sources say. Any interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims require a secondary source.

This page examines how to evaluate sources within the context of Misplaced Pages's content policies. Part of evaluating a source is deciding whether it is a primary, secondary, or tertiary source.

The decision as to which sources are appropriate in any given situation is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on individual article talk pages to achieve consensus. In cases where a consensus is not forthcoming, it may be helpful to seek some assistance in reaching an agreement.

Types of sources

Sources of information are commonly categorized as primary, secondary, or tertiary sources. In brief, a primary source is one close to the event with firsthand knowledge (for example, an eyewitness); a secondary source is at least one step removed (for example, a book about an event written by someone not involved in it); and a tertiary source is an encyclopaedia or textbook that provides a general overview.

The way these concepts are applied to particular sources can change over time. A newspaper article that we regard as a secondary source now might be regarded as a primary source in 100 years time, because it would be close to the event in relation to those reading about that event 100 years hence.

Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

• Primary sources are sources of original work, as well as historical items and references close to the subject. Depending on the field, this can range from speeches, personal correspondence, published editorials, manuscripts, works of fiction, incidents captured on film, witness reports, legal documents, laboratory notebooks, field notes, peer-reviewed articles publishing original research, and even artifacts.

• Secondary sources are reports that draw on research and other references to make interpretive, analytical, or synthesized claims. Depending on the field, these may include textbooks, review articles, and peer-reviewed articles publishing original research. They are best used for representing significant points of view.

• Tertiary sources are materials that provide an overview of primary and secondary sources, such as encyclopedias, textbooks, and other compendia. Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source.

These definitions are not mutually exclusive. Primary sources, for example, might draw on secondary sources to make interpretive, analytic, or synthetic claims. In such cases, sources should be evaluated according to how they are used.

Examples

Primary sources

"Primary Sources, What Are They?". Lafayette College Libraries and Academic Information Resources. 2005. Retrieved 2007-12-19.

Examples by field

Table source: Saylor, Ward & Hooper, Helen - James Cook University

Evaluation

Original research and verifiability

All sources should be used in a way that does not give rise to new analyses, syntheses, or original conclusions that are not verifiable. Interpretive claims, analysis, or synthetic claims "that are challenged or likely to be challenged" (see WP:V) must be appropriately sourced. Original analysis by Misplaced Pages editors may not be added to articles.

Article statements generally should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages. Passages should not be taken out of context in a way that changes their meaning. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source's author(s).

Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Misplaced Pages, but no original interpretations or conclusions may be drawn from primary sources. Any interpretation of primary source material presented in a Misplaced Pages article requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation, and to the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

• only make descriptive claims about the material found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
• make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

Tertiary sources can be useful in providing context and avoiding original research in topics where there exist very large amounts of primary and/or secondary sources. "Common knowledge" claims may be cited to tertiary sources.

Biographies of living persons

Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable secondary sources, it will violate the No original research, Verifiability, and Notability policies, as well as Biographies of living persons.

Material about living persons must be carefully evaluated to ensure neutral point of view, and avoid undue weight. The use of primary sources may easily lead to syntheses that constitute original research. Editors should not use public records as a source about a subject — such as birth certificates, home evaluations, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, or trial transcripts — unless these have been used by a reliable, secondary source. For example, if writing about a subject who had a messy divorce, do not go the courthouse to retrieve court papers about it; instead, rely on secondary sources, such as mainstream newspapers, that have written about the divorce. If they have not written about it, nor should Misplaced Pages.

Notability

A subject merits its own article on Misplaced Pages when it is notable enough to have received acknowledgment in multiple, reliable, secondary sources. If an article lacks secondary sources that reasonably demonstrate its importance, it may be listed for deletion.

Academic definitions of primary/secondary sources

In academic writing

Much has been written about the academic theory of source classification. This theory is not always used to distinguish primary and secondary sources; however, it is a good starting point to understanding how sources are often categorized roughly based on genre or description. In theoretical source classification, sources are classified according to how they are used, as follows:

• A primary source is a source close to or otherwise involved in an event that is cited for its original content. Primary sources provide researchers with "direct, unmediated information about the object of study."

• A secondary source is a source cited for its discussion or presentation of material previously presented elsewhere. Usually, but not always, secondary sources contain commentary or analysis of a primary source. Sometimes, however, a secondary source is merely a re-publication.

From a purely theoretical perspective, the distinction between primary and secondary sources is not a sharp one. The same source can be either primary or secondary, depending on how it is used, because primary and secondary are relative terms.

In the sciences

Peer-reviewed literature

When evaluating sources of scientific material, sources that were evaluated by someone other than the scientist / author when they were published are the most reliable. This includes peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals. The general rule is to always consider the source. The critical element in evaluating the source of material that is to be included in Misplaced Pages was previously published in a source that reviewed that information. Journal articles that have passed through the peer-review process are thus the most highly reliable sources of scientific information.

Peer-reviewed literature is reliable as a source for propositions, ideas, observations, and other scientific data. However, care must be taken that multiple propositions, ideas, observations, and other data are not stitched together to form a new proposition or idea. The sum total of a piece of writing in Misplaced Pages should not advance a unique or novel interpretation. This is original research, even if each individual component is sourced to highly reliable peer-reviewed literature; original research may not be published in Misplaced Pages.

Newspaper articles, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other non-peer-reviewed sources

Newspaper articles, encyclopedias, and textbooks that distill peer-reviewed literature and scientific findings into lay-person language may be easier to understand for the non-expert. If available, they must be used carefully as they are further interpretations of the original work. This sort of coverage is not available for all scientific topics, and is not required to establish reliability of a scientific proposition. Lay-person language interpretations, if confusing or inaccurate, should be buttressed by reference to the original material. In a conflict, the peer-reviewed publication is more authoritative and reliable.

Scientific findings that are originally presented in non-peer reviewed literature must be used with particular care, as they have not been reviewed for scientific accuracy. For example, a newspaper may run an article on a scientist and her latest work, or a scientist might maintain a blog about his research. The descriptions of the scientist's previously unpublished findings, as published in the newspaper or on the blog, are not as reliable a description of that research as a peer-reviewed journal article. If it is important to discuss such findings in the Misplaced Pages article, the most reliable source available should be used. If a peer-reviewed article is published after a newspaper, blog, or other non-peer-reviewed publication of the research, both may be used, but in a conflict, the peer-reviewed publication is more authoritative and reliable.

Review articles

Review articles are articles published within scientific journals that survey and synthesize the state of research in a particular area. Review articles can be very helpful in understanding a topic, and on-point review articles should be cited or included as "further research". Review articles, like encyclopedias or textbooks, may also be useful to cite for general propositions about a field. However, there are three issues to consider when using review articles. First, like any restated material, review articles may have errors. In a conflict over what a paper said, the peer-reviewed publication is more authoritative and reliable than a review article's summation of the publication's findings. Second, a review article may summarize later research or findings that shed new light on earlier research. If possible, the summarized later research should be reviewed and cited directly when describing any points from that research; however, it is permissible to reference the review article as citing the earlier material. Third, a review article that advances new information or its own new synthesis may be cited for those propositions, just as any publication may. However, the source should be carefully evaluated because review articles may not be peer reviewed.

In the humanities

In the humanities, materials that are potential objects of academic research but do not themselves constitute academic research are considered "primary sources." In turn, the academic research that evaluates those primary sources are the "secondary sources."

Peer-reviewed journals are highly regarded "secondary sources," but caution needs to be applied when citing these sources since they may introduce new theories or hypothesis that by themselves cannot (yet) reflect the approval or disapproval of their academic community. Thus, the use of these sources should also be accompanied by other sources that acknowledge/support the position that the source is being cited for. Such a reference might also provide an alternate opinion. In such a case, representing both opinions would also take the requirements of neutral point of view into consideration.

Typically, text books and articles in reliable reference works that are known to have been written by experts on the subject are often the only means to determine whether a statement in a secondary source has merit or not, or if it has not long since been superseded by another hypothesis that has since been overwhelmingly accepted. However, all reference works have a limited life-span, beyond which their articles are only of limited practical use. Some encyclopedias, even highly respected ones, have notoriously long update cycles with the result that they might contain articles that may be as much as 40 years old.

Thus, when evaluating sources, it is best to keep in mind that there will be other editors more knowledgeable of the subject that oneself might be, and if a statement in then discarded as outdated, the removal should be accepted with grace, and respected at face value in accord with assume good faith policy. On the other hand, if you are yourself knowledgeable in the field, and you find such an outdated, but well entrenched, opinion being expressed as current then it may be preferable to keep the outdated statement while placing it in the necessary perspective.

See also

• WP:LIBRARY
• Misplaced Pages:Reference Desk

References

1. Stebbins, Leslie Foster. Student Guide to Research in the Digital Age. Libraries Unlimited, 2006, pp. 61-79. ISBN 1591580994
2. Thomas, Susan (2007), Research Help:Primary vs. Secondary Sources, New York: Borough of Manhattan Commmunity College, A. Philip Randolph Memorial Library {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) notes that a secondary source "analyzes and interprets primary sources", is a "second-hand account of an historical event" or "interprets creative work". It also states that a secondary source "analyzes and interprets research results" or "analyzes and interprets scientific discoveries".
3. The National History Day website states simply that: "Secondary sources are works of synthesis and interpretation based upon primary sources and the work of other authors."
4. ^ Turabian, Kate L; Booth, Wayne C.; Colomb, Gregory G.; Joseph M. (2007), A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, Chicago: UC Press, pp. 25–27, ISBN 0-226-82337-7
5. An article from an old newspaper is regarded as primary-source material for an historian looking back at that period, because it's an example of writing that stems directly from the timeframe and the society he's studying. However, a recent newspaper report of, for example, a car accident is a secondary source regarding that accident, unless the reporter was personally involved or an eye witness.
6. Duff, Alistair (1996), "The literature search: a library-based model for information skills instruction", Library Review, 45 (4): 14–18, doi:10.1108/00242539610115263 ("A primary source is defined here as a source containing new information authored by the original researcher(s) and not previously published elsewhere.").
7. Dalton, Margaret Steig; Charnigo, Laurie (2004), "Historians and Their Information Sources" (PDF), College & Research Libraries, September: 400–25, at 416 n.3, citing U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2003), Occupational Outlook Handbook; Lorenz, C. (2001), "History: Theories and Methods", in Smelser, Neil J.; Bates, Paul B. (eds.), International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavior Sciences, vol. 10, Amsterdam: Elsevier, p. 6871.
8. Kragh, Helge (1989), An Introduction to the Historiography of Science, Cambridge University Press, p. 121, ISBN 0521389216 ("he distinction is not a sharp one. Since a source is only a source in a specific historical context, the same source object can be both a primary or secondary source according to what it is used for.")
9. Id.; Delgadillo, Roberto; Lynch, Beverly (1999), "Future Historians: Their Quest for Information" (PDF), College & Research Libraries: 245–259, at 253 ("he same document can be a primary or a secondary source depending on the particular analysis the historian is doing"); Monagahn, E.J.; Hartman, D.K. (2001), "Historical research in literacy", Reading Online, 4 (11) (" source may be primary or secondary, depending on what the researcher is looking for.").
10. Henige, David (1986), "Primary Source by Primary Source? On the Role of Epidemics in New World Depopulation", Ethnohistory, 33 (3): 292–312, at 292, doi:10.2307/481816 ("he term 'primary' inevitably carries a relative meaning insofar as it defines those pieces of information that stand in closest relationship to an event or process in the present state of our knowledge. Indeed, in most instances the very nature of a primary source tells us that it is actually derivative.…istorians have no choice but to regard certain of the available sources as 'primary' since they are as near to truly original sources as they can now secure.").

• Misplaced Pages proposals