Primary vs. Secondary vs. Tertiary sources Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

There is a potentially meaningful discussion going on at the "Identifying reliable sources" talk page. Like I said, "potentially." It comes back to the perennial question of whether the News 'n' Entertainment Media are universally applicable as sources for a putative encyclopedia. Specifically, the issue is whether "opinion pieces" are to be considered primary sources, but as User:Wilfione opines, "I sometimes wonder whether the distinction primary/ secondary/ tertiary is not in itself something a bit fuzzy." As well he might -- much of what is presented as straight news coverage is actually veiled "opinion pieces." Will Beback, who is always concerned about what impact such policy discussions may have on the POV pushers, expresses his concern that "no clear distinction between opinion (primary) and analysis (secondary or tertiary)." I believe he means "in the policy discussion", because in practice, we all know that it's "analysis" if it is congenial to the POV you are pushing. Or, in the words of User:kmhkmh, "It is indeed an often misleading approach that invites for wikilawyering."

[Ottava]

There is no fuzzy difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary.

Primary source is the originator of the claim - i.e. an opinion piece, a research paper, etc. Secondary sources are reviews of a secondary source. If the secondary source is the topic then it becomes a primary source. A tertiary source is merely a summary of secondary sources. If it is the topic then it becomes a primary source.

Opinion pieces and, say, a professional book review are two very different things. One is some random guy giving an opinion, and the other is (supposedly) a trained academic giving an objective review. However, any subjective comments should not be described as objective.

News sources are not credible because they often have retractions that can take up to a week, and if we take them immediately then it is possible to have missed any corrections. Book published works or magazine published works have more editorial analysis and have a higher threshold of being correct. News sources suck for reasons beyond the primary/secondary source reasons.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

News sources are not credible because they often have retractions that can take up to a week, and if we take them immediately then it is possible to have missed any corrections.

News sources are even more not credible when they don't have the retractions.

[communicat]

News sources are not credible because they often have retractions that can take up to a week, and if we take them immediately then it is possible to have missed any corrections.

News sources are even more not credible when they don't have the retractions.

Even if/when retractions are published they rarely if ever receive the some prominence as the original item. An inaccurate item on the frontpage is likely to be retracted around page 25 or thereabouts, making it easy for the retraction to be overlooked by readers.