User:Lquilter/PSTS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When considering how best to follow core content policies like no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view, it may be helpful to use a method of describing sources that is used in some scholarly fields. This method distinguishes between "primary", "secondary", and "tertiary" sources. Note that while these terms crop up in a wide variety of fields, their use may vary widely. Wikipedia draws its use of these terms primarily from the history fields, and consequently this model may not be helpful in thinking through the issues in other scholarly disciplines (such as science). In the Wikipedia and historical model,

• primary sources are a source of information; this source itself is studied by scholars to produce secondary sources. A primary source, (A), may be described but should not be interpreted. That interpretation is the job of the secondary sources.
• secondary sources means the published literature that discusses primary sources; this literature includes the peer reviewed academic journals, which would be the most reliable resources where available; it also describes newspapers accounts, etc. A hallmark of a reliable secondary source is that (1) some person (B) has analyzed primary source(s) (A); and (2) some other person(s) (C) have published that analysis, after reviewing it with their own standards of reliability. Wikipedia thus can quote (B)'s analysis to interpret (A) because (C) has evaluated (B)'s work. "Secondary sources" here are the published research of scholars, journalists, etc. -- this is original research and Wikipedia may not assume the role of publisher (editor/peer reviewer) for someone's original research. See WP:NOR.
• tertiary sources is a term used to describe encyclopedias, bibliographies, dictionaries, and other reference sources, that gather and accumulate information published in secondary sources. Existence of something within a tertiary source may be quite useful to establish notability of the topic. However, relying on tertiary sources' descriptions of secondary sources or primary sources is disfavored; it is better to go back to the secondary source or primary source itself.
• Note that critiquing a secondary, primary, or tertiary source is what other secondary sources do. So critiquing a secondary source is only appropriate if that critique is itself also published, and independently meets relevant notability, neutral point of view, verifiability, and other core content policies.

Examples:

If this model does not seem appropriate, it may be because the article topic better fits within another field. For instance, if the historical model were applied to the sciences, experiments would constitute the "primary source" and the peer reviewed article would be the "secondary source". However, scientists use the terms "primary literature" to refer to their peer-reviewed journal publications.

In all cases references to the underlying, core policies may be helpful. The following represents a general hierarchy of reliability and appropriate uses:

[edit] Highly to generally reliable sources

• Who did it; why it's reliable; guidelines for use or non-use

1. Scholars, scientists, and academics' published scholarly work - Reliable because it has gone through an independent review process ("peer review" for journal articles; publisher editorial processes for books). Peer-reviewed literature is presumed reliable unless shown otherwise; being shown otherwise may only be done by, for instance, a published retraction; published refutation that is generally acknowledged as a refutation. Permitted uses: The observations may be cited to that reviewer. If the scholar's work is a notable perspective (the consensus perspective, a widely accepted perspective, a significant or notable minority perspective), then it may be the source for such a description.

1. Factual work published as fact in newspapers, magazines, and other works. Reliable because they have gone through an independent review process. May vary widely depending on the general reliability of the source. Even sources generally presumed reliable (e.g., the New York Times) may have conflicts or be shown to be unreliable. These sources may be used to support facts or quotes.

1. Non-peer-reviewed factual work published by acknowledged experts in the field in scholarly publications, e.g., PNAS.

1. Non-peer-reviewed factual work published by acknowledged experts in the field in non-scholarly publications, e.g., an "information" column in a trade publication; an academic on a professional blog; etc.

[edit] Sources reliable for some limited uses

1. Work intended to persuade or express an opinion, not factual information. Legal briefs for instance are generally "persuasive" writing; they may be strongly tilted in one direction or another. Advertising copy, op-eds, letters to the editor, and other forms of "persuasive" writing may all present facts, but these facts are much less reliable in this context for two reasons. First, the facts are not always or even usually fact-checked for reliability; and second, the facts are often presented in a particular light, devoid of other relevant facts, and aimed at persuading rather than informing. These resources should not be relied upon for facts. However, they may be quoted or cited as opinion or belief, and in some instances they may be cited as examples of a writer's opinion or beliefs. This should never be done when there is controversy over whether the writer held such opinions or beliefs, as for example when the wording is unclear or when there are multiple conflicting statements by the same person. If there is a controversy over statements then the controversy should be addressed by reliable "secondary sources" -- e.g., scholars or journalists who have addressed the existence of a controversy, and summarized the various sides.

1. Self-published materials by persons with no formal or outside recognition of their expertise

[edit] Notes

Legal works

Describing basics of a statute or case can and should cite to the statute or case. However, interpreting the statute in light of case law should be left to other works -- including, for instance, a case. Including lists of other relevant cases or statutes is fine. Interpreting the likelihood of what this case or statute means for this or that action or behavior or legal situation is not just WP:OR, it is practically legal advice.

Fictional (literary, filmic, musical) works

The fictional work situation distorts these policies, because fiction fans push very hard to include extremes of plot, character, and world- information, sourced to the original work. The fact is that much of that material is not real-world notable, and notability is the primary reason that much of it should be deleted. The lack of academic or news reports dedicated to discussing Troi's mother in detail suggests strongly that that character has little real-world notability. However, other sources evaluating and discussing fiction only indicates notability or lack thereof; it does not define notability or lack thereof. So ultimately the fiction problem is not a problem of sources. The sources are clear and would work the same way, for instance, sources to a case or statute would: quotes from the material or basic discussion of it should exist, and should be cited to the original. The real-world relevance and analysis of the material should be based on other sources that have been published elsewhere and evaluated for reliability by some third party -- e.g., peer review, editorial boards, etc.

Scientific works

An experiment or observation is a real-world event that the scientist observed. The paper reporting that experiment or observation is a published resource. Freshly interpreting the original experiment would be WP:OR. Reporting the scientist's explanation of the experiment is simply describing published research from a reliable source. The confusion here derives from two things: (1) The scientist who created the experiment or made the observation is also the one who reports it and describes it. (2) In the sciences, this literature is described as the "primary literature". Nevertheless, this is not really a problem for WP:OR or WP:V or WP:RS. Describing what the scientist says about the experiment is verifiable, not original research, and from a reliable source -- the paper. It's a reliable source because it was independently verified from a third party (peer review and/or editorial board). ... The fact that scientists describe this as the primary literature to distinguish it from, say, review articles and textbooks (secondary literature) is irrelevant; the primary/secondary/tertiary that Wikipedia uses is drawn from historical research; while it is one useful model but if confusing or unhelpful should be disregarded.

• Religious works -

A religious text itself is not peer reviewed, and what it claims to be (a factual description of the world, an allegorical description of events, a collection of myths, a literary work) is itself disputed.

• Thus, a religious text can not be used or cited as a reliable source for events that actually happened. However, scholars who have used a religious text as support for events that actually happened are reliable sources. The best way to handle it is to say that "Scholar Abrams cites Genesis as textual support for flood geology.<ref>Abrams, "Genesis Rules", Journal of Religious Inquiry (2007)</ref> or "The movement known as "biblical literalists" feels that Genesis provides textual support for flood geology.<ref>See, e.g., Abrams, "Genesis Rules", Journal of Religious Inquiry (2007)</ref>
• A religious text should not be interpreted in Wikipedia; this is "original research", also known as exegesis. So we shouldn't say, "Genesis tells the story of the dawn of humankind." but we can say that "Genesis tells what is known as an 'origin story'.<ref>Some reference.</ref> The significance of origin stories varies across believes and interpreters: Some people believe that the Genesis origin story describes the literal dawn of the species of humankind;<ref>Some reference.</ref> others believe it is a story drawn from the history of the dawn of Judaism;<ref>Some reference.</ref> and others believe that it is an allegory of universal human issues such as growth, knowledge, redemption, loss.<ref>Some reference.</ref>