what three rules should be applied when using primary source documents to make sure that they are reliable and accurate?
Three rules which should be applied when using primary source documents to make sure that they are reliable and accurate are that they should be able to speak for themselves,offer new input into historical questions and ?
I don't even know if this is right please help, I don't really get this
should it be time and place rule and bias rule?
please help I don't really get this
sorry but I still don't get this
could you tell me if the rules that I listed are right or wrong
You'll several rules in the "Using Primary Sources" section of this article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source
1. Time and place
2. Author
3. Audience
4. Personalities and roles (be able to identify every person mentioned in the document and his/her role)
5. Meaning and Purpose of the source/document
6. Content (be sure you understand all words and phrases, especially those that might have meant something different for the author)
7. Allusions (events, etc. the author takes for granted the audience will understand)
8. Assumptions and/or Bias
I got this off from the internet, so I'm not sure if this is what you're really looking for. I know there are more than three, but still, I hope they help!
thanks, I think i have got it
No worries, I can help you understand the three rules for using primary source documents to ensure reliability and accuracy.
1. Rule of self-sufficiency: Primary source documents should speak for themselves. They should contain enough information to allow the reader to draw their own conclusions without relying heavily on external sources. This means that the document should provide relevant details, context, and evidence to support its claims or observations.
To determine if a primary source document is self-sufficient, you can ask yourself questions like: Does the document provide specific details about the event or time period it describes? Does it include firsthand observations or accounts from individuals who were directly involved? By evaluating the document's content and the extent to which it can stand on its own, you can gauge its reliability.
2. Rule of novelty: Primary source documents should offer new insight or information into historical questions. They should provide unique perspectives or ideas that contribute to a deeper understanding of the topic under investigation. These new insights can challenge existing narratives or shed light on lesser-known aspects of history.
To assess the novelty of a primary source document, you can compare it to other existing sources on the same subject. Look for aspects of the document that provide fresh perspectives, present previously unknown information, or challenge widely accepted interpretations. If the document adds something valuable and unique to the historical discourse, it increases its reliability.
3. Rule of corroboration: Primary source documents should be supported by additional evidence or multiple sources whenever possible. While primary sources offer firsthand accounts or direct evidence, it is essential to compare them with other primary and secondary sources to ensure accuracy and reliability. Corroborating evidence helps to validate the claims made in the primary source and strengthens its credibility.
To apply the rule of corroboration, you should cross-reference information from the primary source with other reliable sources, such as accounts from different witnesses, official records, diaries, photographs, or scholarly analyses. By verifying the information and confirming consistency across multiple sources, you can establish a higher level of confidence in the reliability and accuracy of the primary source.
By following these three rules of self-sufficiency, novelty, and corroboration, you can critically evaluate primary source documents and make informed judgments about their reliability and accuracy in historical research.