User talk:Vassyana/sources

I would avoid referring to WP:RS as most of the juice about the reliability of sources is now in WP:V. Changed accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good deal. Thanks! Vassyana 08:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"First class" and "second class" sources are a novel distinction that was never used in WP. I am concerned about making such a distinction. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge it's a novel distinction. However, primary/secondary/tertiary means so many different things, depending on the field and perspective, that they are essentially meaningless distinctions. Even worse, it's been pointed out the current Wikipedia definition of such sources lends itself to abuse. We both know ancient texts and religious writings are primary sources in the fields of history, anthropology and religious studies. Yet, under the current definition of secondary sources in PSTS, when the Old Testament discusses Middle Eastern history, it would be considered (under literal/strict definition) a secondary source. We both know I could find a Bible published by a publisher with a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy". BirgitteSB pointed out what we're really concerned with is a distinction between what we're calling "reliable secondary sources", and well, everything else, at least in terms of original research concerns. Out-of-date, unreliable and other such "second class" sources are exactly what is most prone to original research and POV-pushing, because they are more likely to lack scholarly context and/or contain obsolete/inaccurate information. Make sense? Vassyana 18:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. What I meant is that to introduce these distinctions we need much better wording and expansion on these novel concepts. Alternatively we can explore a better explanation of what we mean by "reliable secondary sources", rather than invent yet another set of distinctions (that, in my experience, is is a hard thing to introduce at this stage of Wikipedia's development). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is some bias associated with these too, Second-class citizen for example...how about "Class I, Class II, Class III, etc...)? You just know someone will make an issue out of it...;) Dreadstar † 19:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could work it to explain that primary and secondary sources have varying definitions depending on the field of study. Then, introduce "reliable secondary sources" as what is listed as "first class sources" in the current draft. I believe this would be harmonious and complementary to WP:V#Sources. The catch-all "not reliable secondary sources" category could be called something neutral like "auxiliary sources". This would retain the essence, while giving a nod to previous convention and providing a more neutral wording for less desirable sources. What do you guys think? Vassyana 19:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm putting some thought on how to clarify/expand the explanation of the distinction without bloating the draft. Any suggestions are more than welcome. :o) Vassyana 19:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, good! Dreadstar † 02:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

I've adjusted the language and incorporated some material about secondary sources from the current version of the policy. How's it shaping out? What needs to be adjusted? What needs better explanation? What problems could this cause? What objections would this run into? Thanks! Vassyana 02:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reordered and rephrased some things. My goal was to lay out the idea in small, easily-digested sections, with each building up the overall concept and warning. I've also revised it somewhat to better fit into the "legacy" policy regarding primary and secondary sources. How's this version looking? Vassyana 11:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's really coming together nicely. I wish I had more suggestions, but your work is excellent. Where were you thinking of plugging this in? Dreadstar † 01:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts

The one thing I think missing from the auxiliary sources section is the follow-up on "written purposefully to inform about the subject they are being cited for" from the section above. You can take a reliable secondary source from one article and use it as an auxiliary source in another simply because the focus has changed. For a general example, a book by a notable historian is a reliable secondary source for the events it covers but could only be used as an auxiliary source in the article about the historian. I think this needs a little further clarification.

As whole however this composition jumps about. Different terms are used in different sections for the same purpose. The idea above to give a fuller explanation of secondary sources having different meaning in different fields is good and I think that would be helpful. The current section under secondary sources is using the journalist example that I have always found be problematic. The question we need to decide is why do we emphasize secondary sources? Because of they offer analysis? Because of they offer a more independent view? Because of they offer a broader context? All three? The journalist example focuses on independence at the expense of the other two. Another question is where does this material fit in to Wikipedia polices. Knowing what the material is being written for would lend it better focus. Right now if I had to guess, it appears to be written for Wikipedia:Interplay between core polices ;)--BirgitteSB 17:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the feedback. I'll mull it over and make another go at revising the draft. :) Vassyana 00:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I does jump about a tiny bit, from secondary to reliable then to reliable secondary, then to auxiliary. Overall, it looks good, but the flow from one to another may need some slight adjustment. If we know where it's going to be plugged into, or in place of, it might be helpful to adjusting the flow. Looks good, though..! Dreadstar † 02:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the idea fleshes out well, and can achieve consensus, then it would be a replacement for WP:PSTS. Vassyana 02:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research

Dear Vassyana,

This reads very nicely. Here are some ideas regarding Original Research. I've started with the second line under "Reliable Sources."

"Original research" is when when one takes topics and quotations from a primary body of literature to make a claim. The reason Original Research is discouraged is because topics and quotations can be taken out of context to promote a point-of-view, which introduces bias into articles.

For example, it is often easy to misrepresent religious texts by taking topics or quotations out of context. As an example, in the Bible Jesus says it is better to cut off a hand than to sin. This quotation could be presented as evidence supporting a claim that the Bible encourages self-mutilation. However, this claim is taken out of context of the entire passage and is thus not an accurate reflection of the body of literature.

If a reliable secondary source, such as a scholar or neutral publication with a fact-checking system (like a mainstream newspaper, magazine, or book-publisher), has conducted analysis of a body of literature and made a claim, then they are considered a good source and their claims can be reported in an article.

If a self-published website, blog, or vanity press book conducts analysis and makes a claim, then it is unlikely they are a reliable source, because their claims are usually made to promote a specific point-of-view, and as a result are biased and not verifiable. Celebrity fan sites and anti-cult sites are both examples of poor sources for Wikipedia articles, because their purpose is to promote a positive or negative view, respectively, about a subject.

What does everyone think? Would they agree this is an accurate representation of OR? (it's possible I don't get it myself so feedback welcome)

Best, Renee --Renee 22:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]