Wikipedia:Historiographical approach to the GNG

The historiographical, information-focused, primary/secondary source typing and matching information-independence classification approach to the WP:GNG.

It is a theoretical basis, but many good editors reject it while mismatching it to other concepts like reliability and bias/POV.

Wikipedia is (meant to be) an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia is a tertiary source, meaning it is concerned with information and knowledge above data. Accordingly, "Wikipedia as an encyclopedia" belongs squarely in the field of historiography, not science, not journalism, and then, for the sake of sensible communication, let's adopt the language of historiography (as is largely the case in Wikipedia policy, WP:PSTS especially, if not always in practice (eg NSPORT)).

The consequence of the above is that it is essential to consider the provenance of the information. Who wrote it, and why, and to what audience? Note that "information" is "secondary sourced", as distinct from data, which is pure, testable, or provable. Information and knowledge is interpretive, subjective, depends on perspective, and not necessarily subject to being tested or proved. If an interpretation of the data becomes testable and reliable and provable, that interpretation becomes data.

The association of the word "reputable" with unprovable secondary source interpretations, contextualisations and opinions is logical, but will not in itself fix any simple problem. "Reliable" is not a bad word, indeed, quality secondary sources are expected to be published in publications, by publishers, and editors, with a reputation for reliability. Never discard "reliable", Wikipedia does not want to open a door to analysis of unreliable data. -- SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)