Editing Primary source (section)

==Strengths and weaknesses==
In many fields and contexts, such as historical writing, it is almost always advisable to use primary sources if possible, and "if none are available, it is only with great caution that [the author] may proceed to make use of secondary sources."<ref name=Cipolla/> In addition, primary sources avoid the problem inherent in secondary sources in which each new author may distort and put a new spin on the findings of prior cited authors.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Ross|first=Jeffrey Ian|title=Taking Stock of Research Methods and Analysis on Oppositional Political Terrorism|journal=The American Sociologist|volume=35|issue=2|year=2004|pages=26–37|doi=10.1007/BF02692395|s2cid=143532955|quote=The analysis of secondary source information is problematic. The further an investigator is from the primary source, the more distorted the information may be. Again, each new person may put his or her spin on the findings.}}</ref>
{{quote|A history, whose author draws conclusions from other than primary sources or secondary sources actually based on primary sources, is by definition [[fiction]] and not history at all.|Kameron Searle<ref>{{cite book|last=Ravinder Pal|title=Research Process in Physical Education and Sports Sciences|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NqsJEAAAQBAJ|year=2020|publisher=Friends Publications (India)|isbn=978-81-947997-6-4|page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=NqsJEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA135 135]}}</ref>}}

However, a primary source is not necessarily more of an authority or better than a secondary source. There can be [[bias]] and tacit unconscious views that twist historical information.
{{quote|Original material may be... prejudiced, or at least not exactly what it claims to be.|David Iredale<ref>{{Cite book | last1 = Iredale | first1 = David | title = Enjoying archives: what they are, where to find them, how to use them | year = 1973 | publisher = Newton Abbot, David and Charles | isbn = 0-7153-5669-0 | url = https://archive.org/details/enjoyingarchives0000ired }}</ref>}}
The errors may be corrected in secondary sources, which are often subjected to [[peer review]], can be well documented, and are often written by historians working in institutions where methodological accuracy is important to the future of the author's career and reputation. Historians consider the accuracy and [[objectivity (science)|objectivity]] of the primary sources that they are using and historians subject both primary and secondary sources to a high level of scrutiny. A primary source such as a [[Diary|journal]] entry (or the online version, a blog), at best, may only reflect one individual's [[opinion]] on events, which may or may not be truthful, accurate, or complete.

Participants and [[witness|eyewitness]]es may misunderstand events or distort their reports, deliberately or not, to enhance their own image or importance. Such effects can increase over time, as people create a narrative that may not be accurate.<ref>Barbara W. Sommer and Mary Kay Quinlan, ''The Oral History Manual'' (2002)</ref> For any source, primary or secondary, it is important for the researcher to evaluate the amount and direction of bias.<ref>Library of Congress, " Analysis of Primary Sources" [http://memory.loc.gov/learn/lessons/psources/analyze.html online 2007]</ref> As an example, a government report may be an accurate and unbiased description of events, but it may be [[censorship|censored]] or altered for propaganda or [[cover-up]] purposes. The facts can be [[distortion|distorted]] to present the opposing sides in a negative light. [[Barrister]]s are taught that evidence in a court case may be truthful but may still be distorted to support or oppose the position of one of the parties.