Wikipedia:Sources – SWOT analysis

SWOT analysis on primary, secondary and tertiary sources

Comparing advantages and disadvantages of primary, secondary and tertiary sources cannot be done in a one-dimensional way. One type of source is not by definition worse or better than another type. It depends on context, what you're trying to use the source for, sound editorial judgement etc.

There are techniques with which to compare advantages and disadvantages in a multi-dimensional way, that provide an easy to follow overview. The model used here is borrowed from business planning, SWOT analysis. Each type of source has its specific advantages and disadvantages, the idea is to exploit Strengths and Opportunities to the maximum, avoiding Weaknesses and Threats. The analyses below highlight only major directions.

Even non-for-profit organisations like Wikipedia are businesses for which a SWOT analysis makes sense. The general objective is to improve Wikipedia. The SWOT analyses below are however "product placement" SWOTS, not analyses of the organisation as a whole. The finite business objective for which these SWOT analyses are presented below is to provide proper sourcing for all articles, which is a subset of the general goal of improving the encyclopedia by implementing core content policies like WP:V. Three "products" are presented to the "customers" (= Wikipedia editors) concurrently in order to reach that business goal. Below are reasons for which to choose source types depending on circumstances.

Primary sources

Strengths

Low risk of deformation of what the original source actually says.

Weaknesses

Relatively narrow scope of the source.

Primary sources are not a good instrument to establish Notability or relevance.

Primary sources do not typically have a neutral point of view

Opportunities

Primary sources, which are often illustrations, poignant quotes or music/video, may improve attractiveness and insight greatly, and are for that reason widely appreciated.

Threats

Regarding media, the best primary source material is often unavailable for Wikipedia through copyright, and can for that reason be summarily removed. Lots of Wikipedians have gotten discouraged over this.

An overdose of primary sources makes a poor encyclopedia article (otherwise Wikimedia Commons would be regarded as an encyclopedia).

Primary sources are disliked by many editors for their susceptibility to misinterpretation and selection bias.

Some primary sources, such as academic journal articles or corporate and political media, are intended to promote a particular point of view and may be added to Wikipedia with the intent of misleading the reader.

Secondary sources

Strengths

Secondary sources likely combine different angles of approach to a subject.

Weaknesses

Secondary sources may contain POVs (from their authors or publishers) that are difficult to detect.

Opportunities

Wikipedia's bread-and-butter: sourcing by secondary sources is rarely rejected.

Threats

Involves a lot of tediousness fighting with implementation of footnote code or academic Harvard references

Tertiary sources

Strengths

More likely to be balanced from the outset.

Weaknesses

By the time information reaches a traditional tertiary source, it can easily be outdated.

Opportunities

1911 Britannica and similar tertiary sources without copyright impediments make the base of thousands of Wikipedia articles.

Threats

More likely to be so far from the facts that there is a risk of importing bias and oversimplification