As you describe the history of the page, this section intertwines confirming whether quotes, paraphrases, and summaries accurately represeent sources with including sourceless information if that information is easily confirmable.This leaves the question of using primary sources in articles that predominantly rely on secondary sources unaddressed.Your instructors may require you to use more primary sources than secondary.I disagree that quoting a primary source is original research.But it makes sense, after clarifying the use of primary sources, to then have a couple of sentences on secondary sources.I think this is an accurate expression of our policy as it has been understood and enforced for at least the past couple of years.Saying that secondary sources are preferred sources for an encyclopedia does not imply that they are better in an absolute sense.The newspaper eye-witness report (presumably eye-witness) would be a primary source in this case.
Thus articles structured around good secondary sources are more likely to have a neutral point of view and address notable topics.-- Gerry Ashton 20:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC).Some of the other benefits of primary research include being able to get a strong geographic footprint, and to use personal responses within set guidelines to perform mystery shops, and to produce diaries of shopping habits.That is, we report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate.
Nobody who reads any philosophy at all would ever dream of saying that.Thus primary sources are best suited for checking the accuracy of individual facts in secondary sources, or finding details that were not included in secondary sources.-- Gerry Ashton 20:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC).Questions about the difference between primary and secondary sources.As I explained on the Talk page, editors should as much as possible use the original sources - which may be primary as well as secondary.For most sources, the threshold is not explicitly set, and it would be up to a consensus of the editors for an article to decide what was or was not OR.Gosh, Steve, it sounds like you have an awful lot of experience working here at Wikipedia and have a good idea about how to assess realistic, constructive policies.
Primary vs. secondary research ig - SlideShareThose are skills that any reasonable adult would have to possess in order to even begin to evaluate an such an article.
This statement falsely assumes that original research and source based research are mutually exclusive.I think they are precise but not overly restrictive - just restrictive enough to prevent people from using Wikipedia as a vehicle for publicizing their own original research or views.The current definition of primary sources and the basic framework for when primary sources can and cannot be used was hammered out in March 2005, and has been stable since that time.I think a single added sentence indicating somehow that a primary sources is not necessarily worse than a secondary source would be useful when someone is properly using a primary source and someone else wishes to use NPOV as a weapon in replacing it with a secondary source without investigating if it is or is not a correct use of a primary source.Challenge scenario: Synthesizing and identifying design opportunities.
Lab notebooks are clearly a primary source, as are preliminary notes put together on the subject.
USM Tutorials: Primary vs. SecondaryIf so, is it the spirit that is objectionable, or the wording.Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data from other sources.
It may be advisable to get on the same page regarding both of those sections before unprotecting.In the Sciences, primary sources are documents that provide full description of the original research.Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context to judge experimental results.The information may have to be paid to be accessed, or may be freely available as a public record.The shot that ignited the civil war in progress seems to have been this edit by Slrubenstein.But you cannot just insert the conclusions of your own original research.
Also, I think the part about what kind of articles we are talking about should come first, and the requirements second, so readers who are skimming the policy can skip part of the paragraph when it does not apply.
By contrast, secondary research tends to be drawn from existing sources of information, which can then be factored into future marketing and design plans.I hope this can all be worked out ok. WAS 4.250 04:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC).A published paper based on the primary sources (such as lab notebooks) that are privately held among the authors and close associates is still a primary source. -- Gerry Ashton 22:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC).Any point of view implicit in a secondary source, however, can usually be easily identified, thus complying with our neutral point of view policy.Examples of secondary information include reports and studies by government agencies, trade.In this article, we give a complete overview on primary and secondary market research techniques, the benefits, the methods, and what mistakes to avoid.These are relatively rare exceptions and contributors drawing predominately or solely from primary sources should be exceptionally careful to comply with both conditions.A number of people have expressed their support for or acceptance of this version as it stants: Slrubenstein, SlimVirgin, Wjhonson, Jossi, Felonious Monk and I think Jayjg.Is Gerry commited to a constructiv discussion or are we just waisting our time here, as Stevenj observes.