Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is a tertiary source

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Topic & primary source

The second full sentence in the article states:

The topic of a Wikipedia article is never more than a primary source in the context of the Wikipedia article on that topic.

Lets try substituting some topics for the phrase "topic of a Wikipedia article":

  1. George H. W. Bush is never more than a primary source in the context of the Wikipedia article on George H. W. Bush.
  2. The Brooklyn Bridge is never more than a primary source in the context of the Wikipedia article on the Brooklyn Bridge.
  3. Thermodynamics is never more than a primary source in the context of the Wikipedia article on thermodynamics.

Well, I suppose the phrase "is never more than" is an escape clause that makes all three substitutions technically correct, but substitute no. 2 looks a bit strange, and substitute no. 3 looks quite strange. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

the original sentence was obviously written by someone with poor writing skills. No matter how often I read it, it makes no sense whatsoever, and this is even without the 3 examples to demonstrate the point.
The sentence doesn't even work if I try
So sucketh the prose of the whole shebang.
-- Fullstop (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Never one to mince words, is Fullstop. Only time can tell whether or not such superbly punctuated opprobria will lead to PTSS. Nice points by Gerry by the way. I would say that the sentence is quite vague so I came to the talk page to ask Francis about it. Hi Francis -- maybe you can clarify its meaning/purpose here or improve it in the article? TIA. Avb 13:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"[...] John Smith, the geographer, is a primary source for John Smith's work on geography [...]" (SlimVirgin 08:07, 29 November 2007, halfway through this talk page archive's section: Wikipedia talk:No original research/archive29#Can someone show me a real example of good primary-source material that could not be used under this policy?)

Example: quote (by Tacitus) in the second paragraph of the Tacitus#Approach to history section.

Of course this also applies for declarations by a company quoted in a Wikipedia article on that company; for a politician's website quoted in a Wikipedia article on that politician; for the content of a film (even if a "secondary source" documentary film) in the Wikipedia article about that film etc.

Of course if the "topic" of a Wikipedia article is not a "source" (electricity is not a source; thermodynamics is not a source;...) there is nothing to worry about. If it's not a source, it's not going to be primary source in its own article, is it? Does that need to be made explicit in order to make it understandable for non-average readers? --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

When a reader has to ignore a statement from time to time because it makes no sense, that is poor writing. I don't know how many people there are like me, but due to my background in computer programming, whenever I read a rule, policy, etc., I always try to think of unusual, extreme, or special cases, and see how well the rule handles those cases. For people like me, rules that have to be frequently ignored because they make no sense are quite distracting.
(No doubt you've noticed that when computers encounter cases that make no sense to the program, the outcome is generally not good.) --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Humans are not computers. I've never assumed good faith on computers for instance, but I do on wikipedians (and computer programmers, who ususally apply something called "exception handling" in their programming, so that the program doesn't halt if you try to make it divide by zero, etc). Anyhow, I applied improvement [1] - which might work better in the "exception handling" department. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
1. Is it wise to make things understandable only for non-average readers?
2. I don't understand the stuff about good faith of computers, which have nothing to do with the topic. Er, source I mean. No topic.
3. I must be sub-average (or something). I don't understand the explanation of 20 Dec either.
How can a topic be a source? A topic is a topic even when it is a topic of a source, in which case it is then a topic of a source and not a source of a source, which is why it can't be a source of a topic on that source, which has nothing to do with the fact that a source of a topic of the source can't be a source of the topic of the source itself.
Now, everyone knows that. So I don't understand why Francis cannot see that when three people say a sentence doesn't make sense, then it is not a good idea to argue that it does (which, even postfix, sill causes my itsy brain to fault with an "unrecognized instruction")
-- Fullstop (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell's book A History of Western Philosophy is the main topic of Wikipedia's article History of Western Philosophy (Russell). Does that make sense to you? --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I would certainly hope that that is the case. And not, for instance, "A History of Philosophy (Copleston)" -- Fullstop (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell's book A History of Western Philosophy is used as a source in, for example, Wikipedia's Anaximander article. The book is even listed as a secondary source in that article (see Anaximander#Secondary sources). Do you agree with that? --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What's your point? Why is it relevant to determine whether A History of Western Philosophy is/isn't what it is ostensibly about? And what does it have to do with the poor prose of a sentence on this page anyway?
To answer your question in anticipation of one that is on the subject of poor prose: if A History of Western Philosophy is an overview of the history of western philosophy, then it is a reference for the history of western philosophy, and legitimate in the article on a figure in the history of western philosophy.
Its completely irrelevant whether the book is primary, secondary, tertiary or a witches tit. Source-typing says nothing about the quality of a particular statement from a particular source.
So, if you don't mind, cut to the chase, or at least reveal the connection to the pitiful prose.
-- Fullstop (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

To me the current version parses as: "A subject can never be more than a primary source for Wikipedia content about itself" with a touch of WP:BLP#Reliable sources, WP:SELFPUB and WP:SPS. Avb 00:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

hrm! BLP/SELFPUB were good hints. So, what Francis actually means is "An individual cannot him/herself be anything but a primary source for a WP article on that person" or "A book cannot be anything but a primary source for an article on that book or on its author." Right?
-- Fullstop (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes. If you have any suggestions to offer on how this can be put in more legible prose I'd be all ears, I mean in a format that makes clear that this extends beyond persons and books too of course. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
See [2] --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you give me an example of something that extends beyond persons/books? -- Fullstop (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure,
  • Websites
  • Films (fiction and non-fiction), TV shows
  • Art, including lyrics and librettos
  • Anything written or printed on paper (including newspapers, magazines, flyers, postcards, leaflets and posters)
  • Public speeches (e.g. "I Have a Dream")
  • Things carved in stone (e.g. The Rosetta Stone)
  • Companies (I mean, the company as a whole, not the individual people involved in it)
  • Governments, political parties, and all sorts of organisations
  • Fictional characters (a ficitional character, for example representing a queen might in some circumstances be a secondary source on that queen, e.g. in a historical drama depicting how that queen allegedly reacted to certain historic events)
I'm sure I didn't cover everything yet. Anyhow, my point is that this is not some marginal effect for a limited range of articles: it occurs quite often. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
What you're trying to say is:
"A subject (of an article) is not a secondary source for an article on that subject."
But we already know this because a secondary source is at least "one step removed."
-- Fullstop (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
How 'bout:
Any source that is the main topic or subject of a Wikipedia article, can only be used as a primary source for that article.
Yes, self-evident. That's what policies are for. Anyway, rather self-evident than "it makes no sense whatsoever", which was your original appreciation of the idea through my poor writing skills. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
You can reiterate "primary source ... close to source", "secondary source ... one step removed" ten ways to Sunday, but it isn't necessary.
As such, the message is superfluous.
Anything to do with source-typing is not "self-evident." Even the title of the essay is not "self-evident." Even so, 'making no sense' refers to the sentence construction, not the message.
-- Fullstop (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

<<<Re. "the message is superfluous": "There seems to be a segment of the community who takes the view that primary sources are a certain type of source and the typology is per source [...]" [3] This was written less than an hour ago. No, the Wikipedia community at large does not always make the simple deduction that "primary source ... close to source" for instance implies that the Encyclopædia Britannica is not a tertiary source nor a secondary source, but a primary source when used as a reference in the Encyclopædia Britannica article (and that, for instance, this reference [4] is by all accounts a reference to a primary source).

No, not superfluous. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

1. if you were consistently going by what a segment of the community thought, there would be no need for WP:WITS.
2. However, the sentence under discussion stands in WP:WITS, which notes:
"A secondary source is at least one step removed from the described topic."
There are no doubt dozens of ways to describe what is/isn't a primary/secondary/tertiary source. But only one is necessary.
Not that I care either way; If it makes you feel better, you could write the story of your childhood. Just like the sentence under discussion, it wouldn't further the point. -- Fullstop (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)