User:Smalljim/PS2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a proposal for a complete rewrite of the existing (Dec 2007) section of Wikipedia's No original research (NOR) policy that defines Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources (PSTS). It is either intended to replace the existing PSTS section in NOR, or preferably to be removed from NOR and to have an independent life as an essay or guideline.

This new model is written in terms of the people that create the sources, rather than relying on features of the sources themselves, as the present policy does.

Contents

[edit] Primary and secondary sources

Rules for this subsection:

  • Always take the last option that fits without forcing (1a > 1b > 2)
  • A topic is a Wikipedia article or a part of it.
  • "someone" and "other people" must be identifiable non-fictional people.
  • The singular "someone" includes the plural "some people".

[edit] Definitions

1. A primary source for a topic is either:

  • a. an observed thing that is relevant to the topic, or
  • b. a source in which someone describes their own thoughts about the topic or makes statements about its properties.

2. A secondary source discusses at some length other people's thoughts about the topic and the statements they made about its properties.

[edit] Using sources

  • Wikipedia editors must always take care only to describe what is included in the source and never to introduce their own thoughts (original research) into any topic. The aim is that any reasonable, educated person should be able to confirm that the information contained in the topic agrees with the cited sources, with nothing added.
  • Particular care should be taken with type 1b primary sources because they contain no independent check on the rationality or impartiality of the author. Because of this concern, reliable, published secondary sources are preferred.
  • For clarification: there are two types of original research (OR) to beware of. Firstly Wikipedia editors must not add their own OR to articles, whether it is something they have thought of themselves or through making assumptions about what the sources say. Remember that Wikipedia is not a primary source and must not contain any OR. Secondly, although it is not forbidden to report on OR by other people (this is usually of most concern in type 1b sources), it is always important to consider undue weight and, when the topic forms an entire article, notability.

[edit] Examples

Example one. The Gundestrup cauldron is a (type 1a) primary source because it is an "observed thing" obviously relevant to its own topic. Now, Fred Smith has written up his own thoughts about the cauldron in a book The Gundestrup Cauldron - My Way. That book is also a primary source (type 1b), because it describes Smith's thoughts about the cauldron, but doesn't mention anyone else's thoughts or observations about it. However, Jane Jones' well-referenced book All About the Gundestrup Cauldron is a secondary source for the cauldron because in it she discusses other people's thoughts about it and the statements they made about its properties.

Example two. Many sources are both primary and secondary depending on the context. For instance Jim Black's book A History of London is a secondary source for London's history, because in it he discusses other people's thoughts and statements about the city. However, the book is also a (type 1a) primary source on Jim Black because it is an observed thing (a book) relevant to Jim Black. Jim Black's autobiography is a (type 1b) primary source on Jim Black because in it he describes his own thoughts about himself.

Example three. A photograph of a car is a type 1a primary source for that car. It might be a type 1b source, if it's photographed in a way that could be said to express the photographer's thoughts about it (that's probably forcing it a bit). It certainly isn't a secondary source, though.