User:Lquilter/WPdrafts/PSTS

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:

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.

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