User:SaraNoon/sandbox

No Original Logic
If in reporting what a source says you make any inference or draw any deductions, you have crossed the line into engaging in original research. Every statement in articles, especially articles regarding individuals or contested subjects, must reflect the logic of source cited.

This is one of the keys to avoiding original research: make sure that the logic you report reflects the same logical path and interpretation of the authors you cite.

That does not mean that the logic of the authors cited by editors must be impeccable, or even defensible. A notable, verifiable source may in fact be riddled with any number of logical fallacies. But if the opinions are verifiable and relevant to the topic, they may be included, and in some cases may be important to include.

For the purpose of both avoiding original research, spotting original research of others, and discussing content with other editors, editors are encouraged to become familiar with logical fallacies.

New No Original Logic Section - 24 hour trial period
The new section "No Original Logic" (NOL) was first discussed October 1st, here. Additional discussion regarding this proposal will be found above. There was strong support from a few editors, agreement that the proposal had merit from a few others with concerns about the precise wording, and a couple who felt it totally redundant and unnecessary.

For those supporting it, we believe material help to clarify NOR includes the requirement that statements in an article must not introduce logical deductions or inferences not found in the original sources.

After a number of revisions, I'm posting it in the hopes that it will remain in place at least 24 hours so that a greater number of editors may see and comment on it. Please feel free go ahead and start editing it to improve it. But if you completely object to it's inclusion at all, I ask you to make that objection here and tolerate it for at least 24 hours so a larger community of editors will have a chance to see it and comment on it. Then if there is not sufficient consensus or interest in retaining it, it should be removed, of course.

Please note your support or opposition for this general concept below.--SaraNoon (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Primary_Secondary_and_Tertiary_Sources

http://www.dvc.edu/library/libweb/primary_and_secondary_sources.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Scientific_standards

Proposed Changes to conform PSTS with V

Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources
For the purposes of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, primary, secondary, and tertiary sources are defined 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; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field research, experiments or observations which have not been published in a peer reviewed source, experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research ; 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. 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.

Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than 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.

