6 ms·

Wikipedia is actually the secondary source when someone reads a page on it, and it requires primary sources (like factbooks) to cite to exist.

Antibabelic 7mo ago
This is incorrect. Wikipedia relies primarily on secondary sources, which makes it a tertiary source, and it describes itself this way.[1] The World Factbook does not collect the information it provides, making it a secondary source. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PSTS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PSTS
- FrustratedMonky 7mo ago
  It can be both. It uses Primary and Secondary sources. That is why you check the references and use them appropriately.
  - TheCoelacanth 7mo ago
    > Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Primary sources aren't completely disallowed, but they are definitely discouraged.
    - FrustratedMonky 7mo ago
      So, not, not allowed. "The concept of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources originated with the academic discipline of historiography. The point was to give historians a handy way to indicate how close the source of a piece of information was to the actual events.[a] Importantly, the concept developed to deal with "events", rather than ideas or abstract concepts. A primary source was a source that was created at about the same time as the event, regardless of the source's contents. So while a dictionary is an example of a tertiary source, an ancient dictionary is actually a primary source—for the meanings of words in the ancient world." "All sources are primary for something Every source is the primary source for something, whether it be the name of the author, its title, its date of publication, and so forth. For example, no matter what kind of book it is, the copyright page inside the front of a book is a primary source for the date of the book's publication. Even if the book would normally be considered a secondary source, if the statement that you are using this source to support is the date of its own publication, then you are using that book as a primary source." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_usin...
      - Antibabelic 7mo ago
        I'd be interested to see how these quotes show that primary sources are not allowed on Wikipedia.
        FrustratedMonky 7mo ago
        It was an interesting read. Go ahead and do read the link. Perhaps the jist is more about 'Primary' means different things to different groups in different context. And just saying the plain sentence "Wikipedia doesn't use Primary" is a really shallow incorrect take. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source "For example, a memoir is a primary source when it is used to study its author's life or personal relationships, but the same text becomes a secondary source if it is used to investigate broader cultural or social conditions. Thus, the categories “primary” and “secondary” are relative and depend on the historical context and the purpose of the study. "Primary" and "secondary" should be understood as relative terms, with sources categorized according to specific historical contexts and what is being studied."
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
Loughla 7mo ago
The problem is who checks the sources. Of the what billions of sources, how many have actually been verified?
- lazide 7mo ago
  Also, when there are conflicts, who decides what the ‘facts’ are, eh? is is the Gulf of America or not?
  - hk__2 7mo ago
    Nobody, you just mention the different points of view that are in the sources.
    - lazide 7mo ago
      Which nobody does (really) because it turns into a giant narcissist shit fight then for who can come up with the most absurd ‘truthy’ answer for publicity. Everyone has to end up filtering at some point or it’s all just noise.
      - philipwhiuk 7mo ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Mexico_naming_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Mexico_naming_controve... There's an entire article on it.
        lazide 7mo ago
        Now imagine that for toilet paper over the top, or over the bottom, or sitting on top of the toilet tank. And everything in between. We have plenty of bits, at least.
        philipwhiuk 7mo ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_paper_orientation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_paper_orientation Drowning beneath your inability to Google.
SanjayMehta 7mo ago
Wikipedia does not allow primary sources.
- NetMageSCW 7mo ago
  Which is often stupid when the only people who know the truth are the people who were there. Hearsay from secondary sources is not an improvement in that case. That’s why I used to like Quora - you would often see an answer provided by the primary (and only definitive) source for questions.
- Antibabelic 7mo ago
  This is very much false, Primary sources only play a supporting role on Wikipedia, but they are definitely allowed. For example, if you're writing an article on Apple you can cite Apple for what Wikipedia calls "uncontroversial self-description". However, before that, you have to establish the notability of Apple through reliable secondary independent sources. The contents and focus of articles is also dictated by secondary sources. For example, if you take a controversial subject like Urbit, the article would have to reflect the priorities of (mostly critical) journalistic pieces on Urbit. You can cite its documentation for a technical description (that would be "uncontroversial self-description", as I mentioned before), but this would have to be a small part of the article, because it wouldn't reflect the focus of secondary sources.
tokai 7mo ago
Encyclopedias are by definition tertiary sources.

Antibabelic 7mo ago

This is incorrect. Wikipedia relies primarily on secondary sources, which makes it a tertiary source, and it describes itself this way.[1] The World Factbook does not collect the information it provides, making it a secondary source. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PSTS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PSTS

FrustratedMonky 7mo ago
It can be both. It uses Primary and Secondary sources. That is why you check the references and use them appropriately.
- TheCoelacanth 7mo ago
  > Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Primary sources aren't completely disallowed, but they are definitely discouraged.
  - FrustratedMonky 7mo ago
    So, not, not allowed. "The concept of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources originated with the academic discipline of historiography. The point was to give historians a handy way to indicate how close the source of a piece of information was to the actual events.[a] Importantly, the concept developed to deal with "events", rather than ideas or abstract concepts. A primary source was a source that was created at about the same time as the event, regardless of the source's contents. So while a dictionary is an example of a tertiary source, an ancient dictionary is actually a primary source—for the meanings of words in the ancient world." "All sources are primary for something Every source is the primary source for something, whether it be the name of the author, its title, its date of publication, and so forth. For example, no matter what kind of book it is, the copyright page inside the front of a book is a primary source for the date of the book's publication. Even if the book would normally be considered a secondary source, if the statement that you are using this source to support is the date of its own publication, then you are using that book as a primary source." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_usin...
    - Antibabelic 7mo ago
      I'd be interested to see how these quotes show that primary sources are not allowed on Wikipedia.
      - FrustratedMonky 7mo ago
        It was an interesting read. Go ahead and do read the link. Perhaps the jist is more about 'Primary' means different things to different groups in different context. And just saying the plain sentence "Wikipedia doesn't use Primary" is a really shallow incorrect take. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source "For example, a memoir is a primary source when it is used to study its author's life or personal relationships, but the same text becomes a secondary source if it is used to investigate broader cultural or social conditions. Thus, the categories “primary” and “secondary” are relative and depend on the historical context and the purpose of the study. "Primary" and "secondary" should be understood as relative terms, with sources categorized according to specific historical contexts and what is being studied."

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

Loughla 7mo ago

The problem is who checks the sources. Of the what billions of sources, how many have actually been verified?

lazide 7mo ago
Also, when there are conflicts, who decides what the ‘facts’ are, eh? is is the Gulf of America or not?
- hk__2 7mo ago
  Nobody, you just mention the different points of view that are in the sources.
  - lazide 7mo ago
    Which nobody does (really) because it turns into a giant narcissist shit fight then for who can come up with the most absurd ‘truthy’ answer for publicity. Everyone has to end up filtering at some point or it’s all just noise.
    - philipwhiuk 7mo ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Mexico_naming_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Mexico_naming_controve... There's an entire article on it.
      - lazide 7mo ago
        Now imagine that for toilet paper over the top, or over the bottom, or sitting on top of the toilet tank. And everything in between. We have plenty of bits, at least.
        philipwhiuk 7mo ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_paper_orientation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_paper_orientation Drowning beneath your inability to Google.

SanjayMehta 7mo ago

Wikipedia does not allow primary sources.

NetMageSCW 7mo ago
Which is often stupid when the only people who know the truth are the people who were there. Hearsay from secondary sources is not an improvement in that case. That’s why I used to like Quora - you would often see an answer provided by the primary (and only definitive) source for questions.
Antibabelic 7mo ago
This is very much false, Primary sources only play a supporting role on Wikipedia, but they are definitely allowed. For example, if you're writing an article on Apple you can cite Apple for what Wikipedia calls "uncontroversial self-description". However, before that, you have to establish the notability of Apple through reliable secondary independent sources. The contents and focus of articles is also dictated by secondary sources. For example, if you take a controversial subject like Urbit, the article would have to reflect the priorities of (mostly critical) journalistic pieces on Urbit. You can cite its documentation for a technical description (that would be "uncontroversial self-description", as I mentioned before), but this would have to be a small part of the article, because it wouldn't reflect the focus of secondary sources.

tokai 7mo ago

Encyclopedias are by definition tertiary sources.