Wikipedia talk:Evaluating sources

message: Nutshell: This is an essay and should be tagged as such. Marking it as a potential guideline or policy is not helpful. It should be renamed and the scope reviewed because the current name/shortcut is too grand.
Summary:
I understand this was originally an attempt to replace PSTS and provide further guidance. But the article is too long and the nutshell too condensed. Some sections should be excised and the appropriate encyclopaedia articles improved if required. Some sections repeat policy too much, which is not ideal. Much of the text, I feel, shows the author(s) opinions framed round the problems they have seen in their field, but when viewed by folk outside that field, appear unbalanced. Generally, the article appears to dislike secondary sources, which is odd and counter to the emphasis in the original PSTS.
The original idea of expanding PSTS had merit, but the grand title awarded to this page has caused the scope to become unclear. I can't see how such a long and problematic piece of text can become official any time soon. I suggest it be tagged as an essay and the scope re-examined. "Evaluating sources" is the scope of a book, and probably too ambitious. As an essay, it may be that the addition of editors has occurred too early and it might benefit from being userfied for a while. An alternative would be to instigate a few wikiproject-specific essays since the concepts and problems surrounding PSTS seem sometimes to be unique within disciplines.
Here's my review of the text at this version (2007-12-31). BTW: I've only skimmed the above talk-page discussions. There are many editors on WP who evaluate sources and write articles as part of their day job. I'm a complete amateur and my main interest is medical articles, as a lay editor. Given the talent there is here, we can do better. Colin°Talk 19:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An excellent analysis, Colin, thank you. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 14:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great work. The science material was put together as a quick, first draft, and has scarcely been edited since then. The main point was to try to ensure that the language didn't unnecessarily bar the use of primary sources, and the perspective (my perspective) was primarily biology, not medicine. Your edits would be welcome. --Lquilter (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks Carl Colin, but this is still a live proposal. If it becomes a guideline or not, time and more discussions are needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  And you are welcome to add/edit/expand/delete from it ... this is a wiki. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is "Carl"? Do you mean me? I don't see the point in editing a proposed guideline that is flawed in scope and premise. I'm interested in knowing how near readiness you think this is? You haven't responded to any of the criticism. Is this because you think it entirely without merit? Francis agreed with me that this should be an essay but you reverted. I think you need to justify to us, in the face of the described weaknesses, why you still consider this potential guideline material. Colin°Talk 12:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope, Colin. On the bases of your opinion and the opinion of Francis, that don't see the point in editing a proposed guideline that is flawed in scope and premise, then don't edit. But please respect all other editors that have contributed to this proposal. There is no rush, it would either be edited further, used, promoted or demoted. Time will tell. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have respect for the small handful of editors who have worked on this and am rather surprised, given their experience, at its current state. I hope others (some of whom may have worked on this) will agree that this approach needs a rethink. If I'm wrong about the approach, then I'm happy to be proven wrong. However, this proposal also contains "guidelines" that are just plain wrong and is unbalanced in its handling of some types of source material. The latter issues mean that ultimately, if those are not resolved, then I will strongly oppose its promotion. I suspect I won't be the only one.  Colin°Talk 19:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Colin, the discussion about primary sources and PSTS is and will remain a highly debated issue for a while. It is popping out in many pages, and this is one of them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, I agree that, as written, this is an essay. It's full of personal opinion, and it's anyway hard to see how it could be promoted. It couldn't be policy, because it's too idiosyncratic, but the main part of it (the primary/secondary thing) is already policy, so that part can't be demoted to a guideline. It seems that the only sensible thing is to leave it as an essay. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 15:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problen with it is that it lost its way. It started as a subpage to NOR to explain the primary/secondary thing, but then it spread out and started giving general advice about sourcing, often doing nothing but state the obvious (e.g. "sources should be evaluated in context," which doesn't really say anything, because how could they be evaluated out of context?). It seemed to be turning into a re-run of Reliable sources. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 18:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe that I and others had hoped that it could evolve and replace the PSTS section in the current policy, allowing that policy to clean up. As for idiosyncratic, this is, sure, but so is the current PSTS material. However, if others have changed their minds and now agree with SV that its unlikely to go anywhere, then I imagine we'll all just go back to edit-warring on WP:NOR and sparring on Talk:NOR. --Lquilter (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it were to replace any part of NOR, it would need to be written as policy, but that's not the language it uses, and it includes passages that are completely impenetrable, so it would need a serious clean-up before it could be proposed as policy. Also, it didn't stick to the primary/secondary sources thing, but included all kinds of general advice that shouldn't be on a policy page, so those parts would have to be removed. But then it's not clear there would be much left. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A review of this proposed guideline 

message: I've no experience here but the final sentence seems to discuss editor behaviour and the need to avoid outdated ideas that are common to all disciplines.
Colin°Talk 19:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: In the humanities

message: :An excellent analysis, Colin, thank you. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 14:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great work. The science material was put together as a quick, first draft, and has scarcely been edited since then. The main point was to try to ensure that the language didn't unnecessarily bar the use of primary sources, and the perspective (my perspective) was primarily biology, not medicine. Your edits would be welcome. --Lquilter (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks Carl Colin, but this is still a live proposal. If it becomes a guideline or not, time and more discussions are needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  And you are welcome to add/edit/expand/delete from it ... this is a wiki. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is "Carl"? Do you mean me? I don't see the point in editing a proposed guideline that is flawed in scope and premise. I'm interested in knowing how near readiness you think this is? You haven't responded to any of the criticism. Is this because you think it entirely without merit? Francis agreed with me that this should be an essay but you reverted. I think you need to justify to us, in the face of the described weaknesses, why you still consider this potential guideline material. Colin°Talk 12:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope, Colin. On the bases of your opinion and the opinion of Francis, that don't see the point in editing a proposed guideline that is flawed in scope and premise, then don't edit. But please respect all other editors that have contributed to this proposal. There is no rush, it would either be edited further, used, promoted or demoted. Time will tell. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have respect for the small handful of editors who have worked on this and am rather surprised, given their experience, at its current state. I hope others (some of whom may have worked on this) will agree that this approach needs a rethink. If I'm wrong about the approach, then I'm happy to be proven wrong. However, this proposal also contains "guidelines" that are just plain wrong and is unbalanced in its handling of some types of source material. The latter issues mean that ultimately, if those are not resolved, then I will strongly oppose its promotion. I suspect I won't be the only one.  Colin°Talk 19:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Colin, the discussion about primary sources and PSTS is and will remain a highly debated issue for a while. It is popping out in many pages, and this is one of them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, I agree that, as written, this is an essay. It's full of personal opinion, and it's anyway hard to see how it could be promoted. It couldn't be policy, because it's too idiosyncratic, but the main part of it (the primary/secondary thing) is already policy, so that part can't be demoted to a guideline. It seems that the only sensible thing is to leave it as an essay. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 15:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problen with it is that it lost its way. It started as a subpage to NOR to explain the primary/secondary thing, but then it spread out and started giving general advice about sourcing, often doing nothing but state the obvious (e.g. "sources should be evaluated in context," which doesn't really say anything, because how could they be evaluated out of context?). It seemed to be turning into a re-run of Reliable sources. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 18:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe that I and others had hoped that it could evolve and replace the PSTS section in the current policy, allowing that policy to clean up. As for idiosyncratic, this is, sure, but so is the current PSTS material. However, if others have changed their minds and now agree with SV that its unlikely to go anywhere, then I imagine we'll all just go back to edit-warring on WP:NOR and sparring on Talk:NOR. --Lquilter (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it were to replace any part of NOR, it would need to be written as policy, but that's not the language it uses, and it includes passages that are completely impenetrable, so it would need a serious clean-up before it could be proposed as policy. Also, it didn't stick to the primary/secondary sources thing, but included all kinds of general advice that shouldn't be on a policy page, so those parts would have to be removed. But then it's not clear there would be much left. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: responses

message: It's very hard to see what this section is saying, so I'm moving it here for discussion. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 14:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV section

message: Maintaining a neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's most fundamental policies. It is important to ensure that all relevant major and significant-minority viewpoints are presented, and in a neutral way.
The secondary source may dispute the primary source, question its validity or authenticity, or "spin" the source according to a particular ideology or agenda. Therefore, while primary sources are often biased, secondary sources have an opportunity to introduce further bias, or to introduce bias where none existed in the primary source. In addition, the meaning of primary sources might change based on the historical context. Thus, secondary sources will often discuss the historical context of the primary source, and such information is often invaluable, and frequently there is a consensus as to the context within the academic field. Such views as to the context are almost always relevant to the discussion.
Therefore, it is important when using secondary sources to ensure that all important viewpoints about the primary source are represented in a balanced way, taking care to avoid undue weight. For example, if a primary source is the Bible, and experts in the field disagree about the meaning of a particular passage, make sure that a sufficient number of secondary sources are presented to accurately reflect the variety of opinions within that field of study. Also, it would be important to ensure that the Biblical text presented as "authoritative" is the primary source itself, and not an interpretive translation or paraphrase from an opinionated secondary source. In many cases, of course, where the meaning or significance of the primary source is clear, and it is not disputed within the field, secondary sources are not required.
Secondary sources may also be used a primary sources. Such sources serving a dual role are typically important and relevant to the topic, and represent points of view that should be presented. For example, if a secondary source is available that itself summarizes all the important points of view on an issue, and does so in a neutral manner, that secondary source may be cited as a primary source for the current state of academic thought within the field about the original source. If a secondary source was written by a historical contemporary of the primary source, that source may have significance beyond its role as a secondary source, and may also be primary, and often represents an important point of view as to the original meaning of the author and the relevant historical context. 
In some cases, secondary sources may be interpreted or "spun" by contemporary sources that are even more secondary; if such doubly-secondary sources are cited, a sufficient number of them should be presented to ensure that the balance is neutral.
Ends
Main problems:
*The issue of primary and secondary sources has nothing to do with bias. A secondary source may introduce bias, or it may reduce it. A primary source may be highly biased, or not. Bias is a completely separate issue.
*The bit about secondary sources being primary sources if they summarize all the important points of an issue is not correct.
*The part about "doubly secondary sources" is impenetrable.
SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 14:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral point of view 

message: Some of the material on this page seems idiosyncratic at best. For example: "In the humanities, materials that are potential objects of academic research but do not themselves constitute academic research are considered 'primary sources'."
It's not clear what this is trying to say, but at face value, it sounds wrong. Can someone provide a source for it, please? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 15:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe what it's trying to say is that, for instance, a novel would be a primary source. It's the relative use issue again. --Lquilter (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A primary source on itself and its subject matter, yes. But how do you deduce that from "In the humanities, materials that are potential objects of academic research but do not themselves constitute academic research are considered 'primary sources'"? :-) SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  My sense is that the key point is that the relativity. A novel is a primary source for  literary criticism about the novel. A novel is an example of an object of academic research (e.g., literary criticism, literary history, literary biography); it is not itself academic research; its study and production are in "the humanities". So that's just how I read the sentence. It doesn't seem confusing to me (although it doesn't seem like the most helpfully worded way to express that point--I hope I didn't write it). What does it look like to you? --Lquilter (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't really mean anything to me. I think it's either meaningless or almost tautological (when studying primary sources, academics are studying primary sources). I would rewrite it if I knew what it was trying to say, but alas ... SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't disagree .... --Lquilter (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think it is an attempt to express the "disconnect" between the library science definition of primary sources and the humanities usage. For example, in a lot of PSTS definitions Bede's work would be considered a secondary source, though in it's own field (humanities) it's a historical (and therefore primary) source. Certainly, there are better ways to express this, I'm sure. Vassyana (talk) 09:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal opinions in this proposal

message: Added a new section to the essay: Wikipedia:Evaluating sources#SWOT analysis on primary, secondary and tertiary sources
I'm open to constructive comments. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SWOT 

message: Moved to Wikipedia:Sources - SWOT analysis. This section moves this essay in adifferent direction than it was originally created (This essay examines how to evaluate sources within the context of Wikipedia's content policies., as per the lead). As a separate essay, it can be developed further. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note that SWOT analysis  are commonly performed on business ventures and/or projects. Using that model to the analysis of sources, pushes OR to a new dimension. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
* Essay that is exclusively on evaluating sources within the context of Wikipedia's content policies has been moved to Wikipedia:Evaluating sources within the context of Wikipedia's content policies
* An appropriate link to that essay has been placed under the Wikipedia:Evaluating sources#Evaluation per content policies and guidelines section header (note that, for instance, Wikipedia:Notability is a guideline, not a policy).
* First sentence of Wikipedia:Evaluating sources has been changed from "This essay examines how to evaluate sources within the context of Wikipedia's content policies." to "This essay examines several methods for the evaluation of sources." (title and content of a page are not separable)
* SWOT analysis is an evaluation method, and is present in the essay.
* An appropriate link to Wikipedia:Sources - SWOT analysis has been provide under the Wikipedia:Evaluating sources#SWOT analysis on primary, secondary and tertiary sources section header. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You are incapable of accepting constructive criticism. I am undoing your WP:POINT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: What is wrong with you? This is an essay that was being worked on with a specific aim. You come along and add massive section on some  idea about SWOT analysis and sources without even considering asking editors here if this is useful or noit. I reverted and moved your material to a separate essay, so that you can work on it. And then you come and do this? Please do not disrupt to make a point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but I do  not have any constructive criticism about that material. In my opinion it is a brainfart. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not it is a brainfart is irrelevant, isn't it? I think it is a positive step to get people out of their trenches and stop talking next to each other regarding the PSTS issue. That's how it worked for Dhaluza, and I'm sure many more to follow. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is an essay, not a policy page, guideline or main page article. This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. The drive behind this page was an attempt to clarify the uses of sources within the context of our content policies. You are welcome to explore other ideas such as the SWOT one, in a separate essay as that does not fit here as per the lead on the essay, with Dhaluza or any other editors interested in that idea of yours. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Re. This is an essay - you mean: this is an exception to WP:OWN? --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SWOT analysis