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: Sat 24th September 2011, 3:16pm

[SB_Johnny]

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

You're of course completely correct about that, but misunderstandings are epidemic. Have a look at the article being discussed here: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=34901

[Zoloft]

Often Wikipedia editors use fuzzy logic - not in the sense of multivalued inputs and branching algorithms, but in the way a slice of bread gets 'fuzzy' if you leave it out too long.

[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.

[EricBarbour]

This is all bullshit. Wikipedia's own policy pages say, bluntly, that Wikipedia articles are tertiary
sources, by definition.....and yet I've seen hundreds of Wikipedia articles that used other Wikipedia
articles as citations, as if they were primary.

It's rife in the fanboy areas, such as science fiction, anime and manga, etc.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Sun 25th September 2011, 1:18am

[melloden]

This is all bullshit. Wikipedia's own policy pages say, bluntly, that Wikipedia articles are tertiary
sources, by definition.....and yet I've seen hundreds of Wikipedia articles that used other Wikipedia
articles as citations, as if they were primary.

It's rife in the fanboy areas, such as science fiction, anime and manga, etc.

That's because no one cares about those topics, or ones like obscure Indian villages and universities. They're quite funny to read--when you can actually understand them.

[communicat]

Speaking about primary sources, and to digress only slightly: I wonder why WP "editors" of military-political / modern history topics are currently exhibiting so much tardiness about using any of the thousands of primary sources now available as a result of the commendable Wikileaks phenomenon.

Meanwhile, regardless of whether a reliable source is primary, secondary of tertiary, if the rightwing cabals don't like the content of any particular edit, they will find a million ways of using WP rules to "justify" by "consensus" the suppression, censorship or vandalising of that edit. I know.

[Kelly Martin]

Meanwhile, regardless of whether a reliable source is primary, secondary of tertiary, if the rightwing cabals don't like the content of any particular edit, they will find a million ways of using WP rules to "justify" by "consensus" the suppression, censorship or vandalising of that edit. I know.

The same is true of the leftwing cabals.

[SB_Johnny]

Meanwhile, regardless of whether a reliable source is primary, secondary of tertiary, if the rightwing cabals don't like the content of any particular edit, they will find a million ways of using WP rules to "justify" by "consensus" the suppression, censorship or vandalising of that edit. I know.

The same is true of the leftwing cabals.

And, of course, the wingnut cabals.

[communicat]

Meanwhile, regardless of whether a reliable source is primary, secondary of tertiary, if the rightwing cabals don't like the content of any particular edit, they will find a million ways of using WP rules to "justify" by "consensus" the suppression, censorship or vandalising of that edit. I know.

The same is true of the leftwing cabals.

I have no firsthand knowledge of any "leftwing" cabals, but I'm very interested to know more in the interests of neutrality. Kindly supply some usernames of these alleged "leftwing" cabal members and the specific topics they relate to. My own firsthand knowledge as a victim of rightwing cabals is well documented in the numerous NPOV disputes I was involved in at Arbcom and at RFCs etc. Some of the more prominent rightwing cabal member usernames that consistently cropped up are: Edward321; Habip; Nick-D (sometimes referred to as Dick-D); Timotheus Canens; and US defense analyst georgewillherbert, among others.

Any moment now I'm expecting Kelly Martin to tell me that Slimvirgin and/or the EEML never existed. I respectfully suggest that, unless he can provide convincing evidence as to the existence of leftwing cabals, he should STFU.

This post has been edited by communicat: Sun 25th September 2011, 4:49pm

[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.

[powercorrupts]

Meanwhile, regardless of whether a reliable source is primary, secondary of tertiary, if the rightwing cabals don't like the content of any particular edit, they will find a million ways of using WP rules to "justify" by "consensus" the suppression, censorship or vandalising of that edit. I know.

The same is true of the leftwing cabals.

What about the middle of the road cabals?

The most insidious 'cabal' of all is the ever-unthinking Wikipedia Forever cabal, which removes or reduces anything that has proven difficult, for the sake of building up the FA Heap for The Project and attaining those exciting little MMORP symbols for themselves - no-matter where it leaves the article in terms of bias.

I'm waiting for the first Wikipedia murder, which I'm certain will come from a disagreement over trading barnstars.

[communicat]

Meanwhile, regardless of whether a reliable source is primary, secondary of tertiary, if the rightwing cabals don't like the content of any particular edit, they will find a million ways of using WP rules to "justify" by "consensus" the suppression, censorship or vandalising of that edit. I know.

The same is true of the leftwing cabals.

What about the middle of the road cabals?

The most insidious 'cabal' of all is the ever-unthinking Wikipedia Forever cabal, which removes or reduces anything that has proven difficult, for the sake of building up the FA Heap for The Project and attaining those exciting little MMORP symbols for themselves - no-matter where it leaves the article in terms of bias.

I'm waiting for the first Wikipedia murder, which I'm certain will come from a disagreement over trading barnstars.

Well said. I agree wholeheartedly. The simpleton middle-of-the-road cabal hates complexity. Their way of dealing with complexity is simply to revert complex content and get rid of the editor who introduced it.

[Ottava]

Meanwhile, regardless of whether a reliable source is primary, secondary of tertiary, if the rightwing cabals don't like the content of any particular edit, they will find a million ways of using WP rules to "justify" by "consensus" the suppression, censorship or vandalising of that edit. I know.

The same is true of the leftwing cabals.

I have no firsthand knowledge of any "leftwing" cabals, but I'm very interested to know more in the interests of neutrality.

The only "cabals" are leftwing cabals. Wikipedia has always been very left wing - look at the LGBT, global warming, etc. They are adamantly guarded by groups of individuals. Any "right wing" people have been quickly banned.

To be honest, your entries all seem like trolling with your flat out denial of what is there. We have things like Conservapedia because of how disgruntled Conservatives were because they were unable to deal with the cabals.



Hell, just looking through the forums, you will see stuff criticizing groups that promote pederasty, promote bestiality, attack scientists who signed a document critiquing Darwin, etc. Every major issue skewed drastically to the left in a way that most people who would consider themselves "liberal" get queasy at. Remember Benjiboi? He had his group of ultra liberal people and the moderate/somewhat left LGBT people were disgusted with him.

This post has been edited by Ottava: Sun 25th September 2011, 6:42pm

[Herschelkrustofsky]

This is silly. It has never been a question of "left wing" vs. "right wing." It is a question of orthodoxy. That's what Chip Berlet (Cberlet (T-C-L-K-R-D) ) was all about. There are permissible, establishment-sanctioned forms of right-wingery and left-wingery, and then there are the impermissible varieties which are vigilantly rooted of Wikipedia, and/or denounced, misrepresented and maligned (see, for example, Producerism (T-H-L-K-D).)

[thekohser]

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.

And you even edited your post. Are you sure about all of what you said there, Ottava?

[Kelly Martin]

How classic: we have a rabid leftie denying the existence of leftwing cabals, and a rabid rightie denying the existence of rightwing cabals. The rabid leftie also identifies SlimVirgin (an assiduous animal-rights activist, generally considered a left-wing alignment) as a "right wing cabalist".

Hersch is right: it's not about left and right, but about extremism, orthodoxy, and the Wikipedia House Point of View.

[communicat]

Meanwhile, regardless of whether a reliable source is primary, secondary of tertiary, if the rightwing cabals don't like the content of any particular edit, they will find a million ways of using WP rules to "justify" by "consensus" the suppression, censorship or vandalising of that edit. I know.

The same is true of the leftwing cabals.

I have no firsthand knowledge of any "leftwing" cabals, but I'm very interested to know more in the interests of neutrality.

The only "cabals" are leftwing cabals. Wikipedia has always been very left wing - look at the LGBT, global warming, etc. They are adamantly guarded by groups of individuals. Any "right wing" people have been quickly banned.

To be honest, your entries all seem like trolling with your flat out denial of what is there. We have things like Conservapedia because of how disgruntled Conservatives were because they were unable to deal with the cabals.



Hell, just looking through the forums, you will see stuff criticizing groups that promote pederasty, promote bestiality, attack scientists who signed a document critiquing Darwin, etc. Every major issue skewed drastically to the left in a way that most people who would consider themselves "liberal" get queasy at. Remember Benjiboi? He had his group of ultra liberal people and the moderate/somewhat left LGBT people were disgusted with him.

My stated terms of reference were with specific regard to military-political and modern history topics, which as far as I'm concerned are firmly under the control of rightwing cabals. I'm neither interested in nor familiar with the the separate and IMO relatively arcane issues you raise, even if what you say is true. There are loonies on both the left and the right, as also in some areas of overlap between the two.

[Ottava]

How classic: we have a rabid leftie denying the existence of leftwing cabals, and a rabid rightie denying the existence of rightwing cabals. The rabid leftie also identifies SlimVirgin (an assiduous animal-rights activist, generally considered a left-wing alignment) as a "right wing cabalist".

Hersch is right: it's not about left and right, but about extremism, orthodoxy, and the Wikipedia House Point of View.

Libertarians are not right wing. They are anarchists. No one who believes in legalizing pot, free immigration, etc., is "conservative".



Thekohser:

"And you even edited your post. Are you sure about all of what you said there, Ottava?"

I added in a bit about opinion pieces.



Communicat:

"My stated terms of reference were with specific regard to military-political and modern history topics, which as far as I'm concerned are firmly under the control of rightwing cabals. "

LMAO. What? Ahahaha. Roger Davies, Kirill, etc., are all leading the mil hist project and the "military cabal" and are solidly lefty. As are most of the editors like Ed17 who edit in those areas. Just because they write about military doesn't mean they aren't lefty. Our coverage of things like the Iraq War and such things are not pro-Conservative in anyway. Hell, look at the material related to the prison incident.

This post has been edited by Ottava: Sun 25th September 2011, 10:08pm