These sources are translated, repackaged, restated, analyzed, or interpreted information from a primary source. Thus, the information comes to us secondhand, or through at least one filter. Here are some examples that are often used as secondary sources:
yes, while they are interpretations based on the primary source it is still good. Filtering a source is not necessarily bad.
Because it is in its original form, the information in primary sources has reached us from its creators without going through any filter. We get it firsthand.
Best type of source as the firsthand experience is one without interpretation, although could be swayed to a viewpoint.
Sources whose authors intend only to persuade others won’t meet your information need for an answer to your research question or evidence with which to convince your audience.
It's important to know what type of source you will be reading as you can get a grasp of what is to come. For example, facts, opinion narratives etc...
Thinking about the reason an author created a source can be helpful to you because that reason was what dictated the kind of information he/she chose to include.
This is very important to think of the authors stand on the matter or if the info is trying to push a viewpoint.
There is a good chance that anything but the most recent sources may be out of date. So it’s a good idea to aim for life sciences sources no more than 5 years old.
q 3. How early does something need to be published to be relevant? good rule of thumb
Is this source relevant to my research question? Is this source recent enough (or created in the right time period)? Is this a credible source–a source my audience and I should be able to trust?
Q 2. Is there a rubric for what sites can be trusted. yes, there is.
Evaluating sources for relevance, currency, and credibility is one of the most complex tasks you’ll do when working on a research project.
Q 1. What does “ thinking critically” mean ?