This guide provides a brief overview of the differences between primary and secondary sources for historical research.But by mentioning primary and secondary sources and treating them equally, this sentence can be misinterpreted to contractict the paragraph that follows.I wish you would focus on the issues, instead of personal attacks.Authors Peni Acayo and Andy Schwanbeck walk you through the various types of research (primary vs. secondary, quantitative vs. qualitative, etc.) so that you get a sense of which are appropriate for the job at hand.This is one of the subsequent variations on an original theme of Rubenstein, and it still amounts to a radical re-invention of previous policy.
GetAgrippa 04:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC) I may be confused with all the edits.On the other hand, Gerry gives the example of changing units, paraphrasing, summarizing, etcetera (in ways that are clearly not a novel synthesis), which require some ability to read and understand the source material.And if people say it already says that then what could hurt with a single sentence making it more clear that that is the case. WAS 4.250 23:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC).Ultimately, a policy like this has to be written in broad language that requires some common-sense interpretation.Secondary Sources are one step removed from primary sources, though they often quote or otherwise use primary sources.
Thus, popular newspaper and magazine sources are generally not reliable sources for science and medicine articles.I thought Gerry would at least respond to my suggestion, one way or the other, since I was responding to hiw criticism.Steven, this seems less a rationale for favoring secondary sources than a rationale for restricting the use of primary sources.Interviewees are typically quizzed on scales of interest, and are sometimes asked to provide detailed feedback on very specific parts of a product or service.Does anyone object to this version, that Gerry has proposed and I support.The information may have to be paid to be accessed, or may be freely available as a public record.Is Gerry commited to a constructiv discussion or are we just waisting our time here, as Stevenj observes.In this way, it is possible to get a strong sense of how well consumers may act in the future, as well as how they might react negatively to certain aspects of a product.
Both, however, offer their advantages for researching the potential success of, or reactions to, a product or service.At H5N1 you have used primary sources in a way you feel is proper, and no other editor has challenged you.I would drop the part about Apple pie, since that article seems to mostly use secondary sources.It is essential to the quality and integrity of Wikipedia that all articles be based on information collected from verifiable sources.
Primary research vs. secondary research - What is Market
Reputable secondary sources, such as authoritative textbooks and review articles, are generally preferred over primary sources in Wikipedia—primary sources often require specialists to interpret them correctly and place them in the proper context, and it is especially difficult to avoid original research when relying mostly on primary sources.This leaves the question of using primary sources in articles that predominantly rely on secondary sources unaddressed.It is perfectly acceptable for a good primary source to address a very narrow topic and not make any attempt to place that topic in any kind of larger context.In fact, with all due respect, i think you are missing the point.
The Effective Use of Secondary Data - Brown...
The Difference Between Primary and Secondary Sources ofWeek Six: Identifying Primary and Secondary Sources. practice conducting research to find a primary and secondary source. Identifying Primary and Secondary Sources.Perhaps the best approach to take is to use secondary research to get a general impression of demographics and market trends, before using primary research in the test marketing stage, and to work out any pre launch problems before you start to scale out a product.I also would like others to weigh in. -- Gerry Ashton 22:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC).The disadvantage of this example is it is a bit esoteric, and might not be appreciated by younger readers.-- Gerry Ashton 05:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC).
The internet has allowed for secondary research to become a quick and effective tool for gathering information, for example users can review search engine marketing techniques by their competitors to get a better insight into their market.For example, the episodes of the Nova television series would qualify as secondary sources. -- Gerry Ashton 21:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC).I dispute that the peer-review process makes a secondary source out of a primary one.Primary sources were occasionally necessary to clarify a confused, changing, and very important topic.Primary: Secondary: clinical or research studies critique of a study, clinical trial or procedure ethnographical research a synthesis of various research findings.Plus, find out how research can directly inform your designs, using generative research, user testing, and rapid prototyping.Concerning the request for an example to replace Apple pie, how about Braunfeld v.
Notes are saved with you account but can also be exported as plain text, MS Word, PDF, Google Doc, or Evernote.It is only in Wikipedia (according to what I propose) that secondary sources are preferred.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.In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events ), but these are exceptions.
Since power plugs are readily available to almost everyone in Wikipedia reader in North America, and so are rulers, the power plug itself can serve as a primary source. -- Gerry Ashton 16:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC).Provide an actual reason, otherwise you are just being argumentative and obstructive.The former mostly involves conducting face to face and group interviews with potential consumers, while the latter is more oriented towards using existing research and surveys to predict demographic trends.I am not sure what the most elegant solution to the problem is, but I hope I have shed some light on the nature of the problem.I would like to hear what Gerry proposes would clarify matters without the possible confusion.Understanding the difference between them and how to use them can.But this does not count as a criticism of my suggestion, because my suggestion above in no way would prevent you from doing that.
In the Sciences, primary sources are documents that provide full description of the original research.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.
Many fields of scholarship encourage the use of primary sources, and I suspect many people reading the guidelines will encounter a statement that secondary sources are flat-out better than primary sources, and just consider the entire policy to be ridiculous, and go off and do their own thing. -- Gerry Ashton 20:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC).Such an article or section should (1) only make descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) the editor makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims.Because secondary sources are preferred, for the reasons I explained (and as others have explained.over and over).The only personal attack I see here is made by you, Wjohnson.All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources.When paraphrasing or summarizing a source, the skills used might be those of any good reader and writer.JA: GTB, up until 15 Aug 2006 the WP:NOR policy had remained pretty much the same for as long as I personally had been watching it, since 20 Dec 2005 at least.In primary data analysis the individuals who collect the data.
Saying that secondary sources are preferred sources for an encyclopedia does not imply that they are better in an absolute sense.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.In the primary market, investors buy securities directly from the company issuing them, while in the secondary market, investors trade securities among themselves.After making that clear, we can define primary and secondary source, and say that preference is normally given to secondary sources, simply because primary sources can be hard to use properly, but that both are acceptable.But - again - what I am proposing here in NO way prevents you from doing that.Here however we have been focusing on the issue of expert authors.Steve Johnson suggested a change, I suggested an alternative, he rejects it. fine. But this does not mean that we now have two competing proposals.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.