User:SaraNoon/GuidelineProposal

Moved to WP:Primary_Secondary_and_Tertiary_Sources

Wikipedia covers an immense number of topics dealing with natural, social, and formal sciences. In all disciplines of science, research and theories are published under a peer-review system, and all credible journals of science are indexed by one or more of the major indexes of scientific journals.

This proposal addresses Wikipedia's reporting and description of such topics. When writing articles or sections involving science, we rely on the reliable sources to describe the scientific evidence accurately while weighting material in a fashion that reflects the weight of published peer reviewed literature in the field.

Proper weighting
Within any scientific discipline there is a body of peer reviewed articles which define the range of theories being proposed and tested and evidence being found to support or undermine the theories. In nearly every area of science, there are areas of legitimate scientific disagreement as scientists examine and reinterpret evidence in light of one theory or another. As peer reviewed articles in indexed journals are always a reliable source of reliable source of vetted viewpoints, (not truth, but interpretations of truth) NPOV policy allows these competing conclusions to exist on the same page.

The weight given to each view should be proportional to the published journal articles on a subject supporting each view. This weighting, however, should also consider and give extra weight to more recent literature when it is evident that the weight of recent academic research has clearly largely shifted away from a view commonly held, say 50 years ago.

For example, at one time there was likely more academic papers published supporting a steady state theory of the universe whereas in recent decades this has been supplanted by a big bang theory. This means that the original articles on the steady state theory receive most of their citations from the older literature and not from the more recent literature, while original articles on the Big Bang theory receive most of their citations from the recently published articles.

This is an example of where the weighting of an article on the origins of the universe may be appropriately weighted with an emphasis on studies published in the last twenty years rather than within the entire last 100 years.

Wikipedia editors should avoid edit warring over arguments about whether one POV or the other is the "accepted" or "mainstream" view. When dealing with scientific issues, let the published literature itself shape the weight of the article and respect the contributions of other editors.

Similarly, editors should avoid turning arguments over weight into an excuse for edit warring. There is no exacting definition of proper Weight that can exactly determine how much evidence for one view or another should be allowed into an article. Nor can one reasonably expect editors to compile, or trust the claim of other editors, that they have compiled an exact count of articles on all views, multiplied by impact factor of the journals in which they are published, divided by the average age of the articles to determine the appropriate percentage of the article to be allowed to each point of view.

The issue of giving due weight to viewpoints should first be understood to be a guideline, precisely because it cannot be exactly defined. Secondly, the more controversial the article, the less likely there is going to be a unanimity of opinion even among experts. And even if the most experts agree, but a minority of experts have a large public following, clearly a large number of readers may be mostly interested in learning the views of "their experts" and there is nothing wrong with that, and it is in fact an opportunity to provide readers with more evidence from all perspectives.

Wikipedia is not bound by limits of space that limit published encyclopedia articles. Rather than waste time on edit wars over "proper weight", the Project is more rapidly advanced by collaborative editing with a spirit of generosity and openness to seeing as much material presented as possible.

If you feel one POV is being represented by too many citations, the solution is to do your research to see if there are other peer reviewed sources representing your preferred POV that have not been included. Seek to bring balance to the article by adding material, not deleting it. In this way you will help to create a more comprehensive article and more complete bibliography which will be useful to readers who come to Wikipedia looking for information (not truth) and a good start on resources they can study on their own. If a source is misrepresented, delete the misrepresentation or add material from the same source that better represents the source in a balanced fashion. If a resource is redundant, consider if it is possible to add the citation to a section where the findings of similar studies are already reported and at least try to keep the citation...as this shows some respect at least for the contributing editor's contribution of the citation.

Citations proclaiming "most scientists agree with this view" are never authoritative unless backed by a reliable poll of most scientists. Otherwise, it is just an assertion and should not be given undue weight.

More on Consensus and Weight
Rather than attempting to define "consensus" it is sufficient to simply let the peer reviewed literature speak for itself, which also solves the weight problem. Otherwise you face disputes over defining wheter a minority view is held by 49%, 9% or .9% of "experts" and how many words should be allowed to each view.

Respect the peer reviewed process and let the citations (and number of citations) themselves shape the content and weight of the article.

Take the classic argument for exluding discussion of "flat earth" theories. If the proponent of including such material can produce a citation to an peer reviewed and indexed journal of science, published within the last 50 years, wherein some researcher, say Smith, presented (a) evidence and or (b) a serious synthesis of others dats leading him to conclude that the earth was flat, I have no problem with the article stating the fact that "In 1958 Smith published a review of the literature which he proposed supported the theory that the earth was flat.1"

If it exists, such a citation may actually be of considerable interest to people interested in knowing who and how people argue for a flat earth theory. The way to deal with such scientific nonsense is not to exclude it but to include it in exactly such a limited way (one sentence) and then follow it with as many sentences and citations as proponents of the "roundish" earth view as editors feel is necessary to demonstrate that the weight of scholarly opinion is clearly against the flat earth theory.

My view is that the more citations any article in Wikipedia has, the better. I'm an information and citation junky. I use Wikipedia as a tool to start my research, not finish it, and the bibliographies are more valuable than the article text. So I don't want to be told what the consensus view is, I want to see the citations and make my own judgment. The peer review process does not block all "junk science" but it does prevent the accumulation of a large bibliography of junk science. So let the purported "junk science" be cited, if it has at least risen to the level of being pubilshed in a peer reviewed (and indexed journal, if you want to have a quality control on the journals accepted as "reliable"). When such junk science is included it will always be limited by few if any citations and so is easily offset by a bibliography of "good science."

Finally, remember that this whole issue of "consensus" is raised by Wikipedia editors who are dealing not with non controversial issues, like the shape of the earth, but with controversial issues in which they are trying to minimize or even keep out "minority" views. I have no interest in supporting a policy that restricts the inclusion of information from peer reviewed sources, unless the publication or authors have actually retracted the findings. And I support including new findings, properly identified as new and not yet replicated, once published in a peer reviewed journal. It's not our job to predict acceptance or rejection of ideas or to balance them. Instead, we should respect the contribution of editors who have found a study they believe is of note and allow at least a minimal notation of it within relevant articles.--

Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources
A good deal of edit warring is caused by disputes over sources. As policy, primary, secondary, and tertiary sources may all be acceptable if used appropriately. See the Guidelines Regarding Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Sources for detailed definition of these source classifications and discussion and examples regarding the appropriate use of these sources in Wikipedia.

Proper classification of sources as primary or secondary can be complex, or even contentious, because different definitions apply in different fields of knowledge. In addition, a single source may contain both primary and secondary material, and classification of the source may vary depending on use.

For example, a 1863 newspaper about the Gettysburg Address may include would be a secondary source for the text of the Address (the primary source being Lincoln's manuscript) but it would be a primary source of any commentary or observations about the Address. It might also include tertiary material if the reporter included a summary of written reports that appeared in other newspaper accounts.

The classification of a source may also vary depending on use. For example, 1863 newspaper articles about Lincoln's speech become primary sources when used by a modern scholar to write a dissertation on media treatment and public reactions to Lincoln and the Civil War.

So it is important not to become bogged down in arguments about how a source shoud be classfiied. Whether the material in a source is primary, secondary, or tertiary matters less than making certain that the material cited from the source is accurately described without inserting interpretations which are not specifically in the cited source. That is the essence of the "No Original Research" policy.

(Stop here? or add the following?)

In general, when editors are seeking to document interpretations of events, data, or opinions, reliable, published secondary sources are the most preferred sources for Wikipedia articles, especially peer reviewed sources.

Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may also be used in Wikipedia, especially for reporting factual material, but primary sources should not be misused as only a source of facts on which the editor draws to present an intepretation (orginal reseearch) that is not itself explicitly contained in the primary source.

Guidelines Regarding Use of Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Sources
A great deal of editing conflicts surround the selection and use of sources. Some of this surrounds questions regarding the classification of sources as primary, secondary, or tertiary.

Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources may all be appropriately used, if (1) they are used without engaging in original research or synthesis and (2) if in the event of conflicts between sources they are treated with the appropriate deference to the "better" source. These guidelines address these two principles.

These guidelines describe prmary, secondary, and tertiary sources as widely defined, with examples and recommendations about their appropriate use.

Definitions of Primary, Secondary and Tertiary
Various professional fields treat the distinction between primary and secondary sources in differing fashions. Some fields and references also further distinguish between secondary and tertiary sources. Primary, secondary and tertiary sources are broadly defined here as follows:


 * Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic or event. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is an example of a primary source. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; videos; historical documents such as diaries, census results, maps, or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; untabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; the original written or recorded notes of laboratory and field research, experiments or observations which have not been published in a peer reviewed source; original philosophical works, religious scripture, administrative documents, patents, and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.
 * Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event or body of primary source material and my include an interpretation, analysis, or synthetic claims about the subject. Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims.
 * Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that sum up secondary and primary sources. For example, Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source. Many introductory textbooks may also be considered tertiary to the extent that they sum up multiple primary and secondary sources.

The same source may contain both primary and secondary material, so if this becomes an issue, it is important to be able to understnad the differences.

For example, a peer reviewed medical journal article may contain an introductory review of the literature (a secondary source offering a synthesis of the literature), the results of the experiment (including raw primary source data or a a synthesis of primary source data collected in the experiment, and conclusions which are an authoratative analysis of the findings in the context of the literature.

Similarly, a newspaper article reporting what a scientists says at a press conference is a great secondary source documenting what a scientist stated. The same article providing a summary of what "most scientists believe" or what "most research shows" is reflecting a tertiary view, expressing the view of a reporter with limited expertise who has most probably looked at only a few sources and spoken to a few scientists.

An New York Times opinion piece may include secondary source material, quoting from a government report, and primary source material, the columnists opinions regarding what the report means for the economy. The opinion piece itself is a primary soruce regarding the columnist's opinion but a secondary source regarding predictions for the economy.

Primary versus secondary sources may also vary depending on the expertise and access of the individual. For most people, government census reports are treated as a primary source. But to an historian, the primary data from a census are the questionnaires or the primary recordings of the survey data in registers, or the equivalents, and the census report itself is a secondary source reflecting the published analysis, synthesis and reporting of the census by experts.

These examples demonstrate why primary, secondary, and tertiary source definitions can be difficult for some editors to grasp, and a source for contention. While it is useful to grasp these distinctions, it is most important to just keep focused on using these sources in a manner which does not involve original research. Stick close to the facts and read the examples given in WP:SYNTH to avoid going beyond reporting the facts and opinions which appear in the sources you want to use.

Avoiding Original Research
A key concept is simply being able to recognize the difference between a fact and an opinion.

Facts: The most authoratative source for a fact is a primary source, but the most convenient source may be secondary or tertiary source.

Opinions, including a notable or authorative interpretation of events, data, can only be drawn from a reliable secondary source which documents that it is a fact that some person holds that opinion or has synthesized a body of information in a fashion described in the Wikipedia article and cited to that source.

Tertiary sources are acceptable sources for general facts which are not controversial.

All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources which appear in Wikipedia articles should be referenced to a secondary source to avoid original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:
 * only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
 * make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

Unsourced material obtained from a Wikipedian's personal experience, such as an unpublished eyewitness account, should not be added to articles. It would violate both this policy and Verifiability, and would cause Wikipedia to become a primary source for that material.

Tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources. Some tertiary sources may be more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. WP:Verifiability describes some criteria for assessing reliability of sources.

Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary or secondary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages.

It is strongly recommended that you read and understand the important distinction in reporting facts without inserting your own synthesis of facts as illustrated in the example of Smith and Jones found in WP:SYNTH.

Deference to the "Better" Source
As a broad rule of thumb, in regard to accuracy of facts, primary sources which are closer to the original recording of a fact are better than a secondary sources with access to the primary source but which may have mistated facts from the primary source. Similearly, secondary sources are better than tertiary sources which had no access to the primary source but are only summarizing one or more secondary source reports.

Secondary sources reporting on a primary source which report a claim of fact that is contradicted by the primary source or another secondary sources are necessarily called into question by that contradiction. For example, if a WP editor finds that the official published transcripts of some hearing or event show Barney said A but the Washington Post reports that he said B, then the Wikipedia article must include B. Because the Washington Post is a notable and influential source, however, the article may also include the quote A with an inline statement explaining the fact that A was attribted to the Congressman by the Washington Post. After all, it is a fact that the Washington post reported what it did. While retaining the Washington Post quote, in this example, is optional it would be most appropriate to keep it as well in the article if it involves a contentious issue and will avoid edit warring over which source is "true."

Setting aside the qualifications of the author, in regard to opinions and synthesis, secondary sources are equal to each other in regard to being authoratative accounts of an authors' opinion. But peer reviewed secondary sources are generally "better" than non-peer reviewed sources in that the peer reviewers, with expertise in a field, have affirmed that the authors opinions, if not correct, are at least a reasonable interpretation of the subject which contributes to the body of knowledge or debate. Put another way, peer reviewed sources are likely more notable and their publication is easily verifiable, so these are excellent sources for Wikipedia articles.

Avoid Edit Warring Over Source Classification
It is important to avoid edit warring surrounding the argument that "my source is better than your source" which can sometimes mutate into "my source is secondary, yours is primary" or "your secondary source is contradicted by the primary source it cites," et cetera.

Wikipedia is intended to be a comprehensive source of information. The more sources cited by the article, the more help editors have given to people researching a subject. Many contributing editors will see any attempt to delete verifiable sources simply because you believe your source is "better" as disruptive and this can lead to edit warring and damage the project. As a rule of thumb, it is generally preferable to let the number of sources cited grow without imposing any artificial limit on the number, especially if there editors who feel strongly that certain sources should be retained.

This recommendation for retaining sources in article does not mean that all sources deserve to be discussed at length, or even discussed at all, especially if they are duplicative of material already discussed. But it does reflect the idea of showing respect for the contributions of other editors by at least retaining their sources if anyone insists the source is needed. (Generally, these arguments surround attempts to delete veriable secondary or primary sources which express views or facts that contradict some other editor's preferred point of view.)

If an editor has found and contributed a source that is verifiable according to policy and not clearly unreliable (according to guidelines on reliability), it is generally best to respect that contribution at least enough to allow it to remain as a footnoted source. This is especially good policy if an editor feels strongly that it should be included. At the very least, this allows readers of a similar bent an opportunity to review the source if they are researching the topic.

Remember, in Wikipedia articles the standard is not "truth" it is verifiability. Once an editor has met his or her burden of proof by citing a verifiable source, the source should not be deleted unless those objecting to it have proven that the source does not in fact exist or does not support the material for which it is cited.