Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) at 18:46, 19 December 2007 (eeek, return the nutshell to more useful earlier version, the suggestion would not be good practice and is not in line with the way sources are used on most articles). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Shortcut ]

This page in a nutshell: Sources should be critically evaluated within the context of the articles in which they are used. Any source that has not itself been evaluated prior to publication must only be used with caution. Only quotes or factual, non-analytical statements should be sourced to primary sources.

Evaluating sources refers to assessment of the use of sources in Misplaced Pages, within the context of relevant content policies. Source evaluation is usually facilitated by classing sources and their uses as primary, secondary, or tertiary. Source evaluation should always include checking for source bias and assessment of arguments used by sources.

These are general rules. The decision as to what type of sources are more suitable on any given situation is a matter of common sense, good editorial judgment, and context, and should be discussed on individual article talk pages to achieve consensus among the involved editors. In cases where a consensus is not forthcoming, it may be helpful to seek some assistance in reaching an agreement.

Types of sources

Information sources are commonly distinguished between primary, secondary, and tertiary categories. These concepts can change depending on duration, context, and academic discipline. What is considered a secondary source now, might be used as a primary source in twenty years, and depending on how the source is used, and whether the topic is literature, history, or science or some other field, the concept of the source will be different.

To minimize conflict and confusion, ensure that all editors are using the terms in the same way, and understand how you are using the terms.

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 are based on secondary sources. This includes publications such as general encyclopedias or other compendia; introductory textbooks may also be considered tertiary to the extent they sum up widely accepted results of large amounts of primary and secondary sources.

The above definitions are not mutually exclusive. Particular sources may, for example, be an original work, a historical reference, or be close to the subject, and it might also draw on research and other references to make interpretive, analytical, or synthesized claims. In such cases, it should be evaluated according to how it is cited in the Misplaced Pages article. When the citation focuses on the reference's original work, it is treated as a primary source; when the citation focuses on the reference's analysis of a prior work, it is treated as a secondary source.

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

The following section provides guidance on the use of sources as it applies to specific content policies.

Neutral point of view

Maintaining a neutral point of view is one of Misplaced Pages's most fundamental policies. Because of this, it is important to evaluate sources based on their viewpoint, and ensure that all relevant major viewpoints are presented in a neutral way.

Often, secondary sources introduce a distinct viewpoint as to the primary source being discussed. The secondary source may dispute the primary source, question its validity or authenticity, or "spin" the source according to a particular ideology or agenda. Therefore, while primary sources are often biased, secondary sources have an opportunity to introduce further bias, or to introduce bias where none existed in the primary source. In addition, the meaning of primary sources might change based on the historical context. Thus, secondary sources will often discuss the historical context of the primary source, and such information is often invaluable, and frequently there is a consensus as to the context within the academic field. Such views as to the context are almost always relevant to the discussion.

Therefore, it is important when using secondary sources to ensure that all important viewpoints about the primary source are represented in a balanced way, taking care to avoid undue weight. For example, if a primary source is the Bible, and experts in the field disagree about the meaning of a particular passage, make sure that a sufficient number of secondary sources are presented to accurately reflect the variety of opinions within that field of study. Also, it would be important to ensure that the Biblical text presented as "authoritative" is the primary source itself, and not an interpretive translation or paraphrase from an opinionated secondary source. In many cases, of course, where the meaning or significance of the primary source is clear, and it is not disputed within the field, secondary sources are not required.

Secondary sources may also be used a primary sources. Such sources serving a dual role are typically important and relevant to the topic, and represent points of view that should be presented. For example, if a secondary source is available that itself summarizes all the important points of view on an issue, and does so in a neutral manner, that secondary source may be cited as a primary source for the current state of academic thought within the field about the original source. If a secondary source was written by a historical contemporary of the primary source, that source may have significance beyond its role as a secondary source, and may also be primary, and often represents an important point of view as to the original meaning of the author and the relevant historical context.

In some cases, secondary sources may be interpreted or "spun" by contemporary sources that are even more secondary; if such doubly-secondary sources are cited, a sufficient number of them should be presented to ensure that the balance is neutral.

Original research and verifiability

All sources should be used in a way that does not give rise to new analysis, 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; they may not be original analysis by Misplaced Pages editors.

Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. Article statements generally should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, nor on passing comments. Passages open to interpretation should be precisely cited or avoided. Passages should not be taken out of context in a way that changes their meaning or interpretation. 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. Descriptions of primary sources must stay close to the original. Anyone, even a non-specialist, who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Misplaced Pages passage simply reflects the content of the primary source. In highly-technical articles, content need simply be verifiable by the intended audience, which may require technical knowledge and expertise.

Any interpretation of primary source material presented in a Misplaced Pages article requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation, and that to the extent that an article or particular part of an article relies on a primary source, that part of the article should:

• only make descriptive claims about the information 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.

If an interpretation is found within a primary source itself, it may be cited directly without mediation by a secondary source if that interpretation is quoted or cited accurately without new commentary by the editor. This must be done very carefully due to the potential for abuse. To avoid any problems, always attribute the author of the interpretation in the body of the article.

Drawing conclusions not explicit in the reference cited is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references are cited in context and on topic.

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 and Verifiability policies. Material about living persons available solely in primary sources, in questionable sources, or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links.

Material about living persons, regardless of its source, must be carefully evaluated to ensure neutral point of view, and avoid undue weight. Use of primary sources that were not evaluated prior to publication may easily lead to syntheses that constitute original research, which is not permitted in Misplaced Pages and is particularly problematic in material about living persons.

Exert great care in using material from primary sources. Unless a reliable secondary source has already cited public records, do not use records that include personal details—such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses—or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents Where primary-source material has first been presented by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy.

Notability

A subject merits its own article on Misplaced Pages when the subject is important enough to have received acknowledgment in multiple reliable sources, ideally in secondary sources that have analyzed the subject that the article will be discussing. If an article lacks secondary sources that reasonably demonstrates the importance of the subject, it may be listed for deletion.

Application

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 cited for its original information or content not previously presented elsewhere. They 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. Not all scientific topics will provide this sort of coverage. Lay-person language interpretations, if confusing or inaccurate, should be buttressed by reference to the original material.

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 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 the 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. A review article's summation of a paper's findings is less reliable than the paper itself, if there is any inconsistency between the two. 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 (2006), Student Guide to Research in the Digital Age, Libraries Unlimited, 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. See Terri Schiavo for an example.
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