Are encyclopedias a good source?

Question

Are encyclopedias (e.g. the Encyclopedia Britannica, the World Book Encyclopedia) a good source? Why or why not?

I have read this sentence from here:

References should have credibility in the domain (i.e. no encyclopedia, no source which may be biased, etc.) and should preferably be peer-reviewed literature.

I have also read this sentence from here...

...according to the encyclopedia britannica Ibn Fadi did not come to Cairo until 12 years after Musa Mansa...

...and have also encountered the Encyclopedia Britannica as a reference here.

Of course, just because some answers have used encyclopedias as references doesn't make it good practice. Thus, I would like to learn more. Additionally, the first quote makes it seem like encyclopedias are not credible. If this is the case, why?

Answer 1

Encyclopedias are tertiary sources. Tertiary sources attempt to make a summary of the knowledge contained within secondary sources. They're very useful to get a ground floor on a topic before building up your own argument. They aren't very useful to put forth as the argument itself, unless the argument happens to be about a common knowledge issue. For this site, most answers cannot be adequately answered with a tertiary source like an encyclopedia.

Secondary sources are very appropriate for this site. They are things like expert opinion and industry consensus. A quality secondary source is from an expert on the topic and he draws on primary sources to make his argument.

Primary sources are also appropriate for this site, but only if they are followed with an argument that puts them into some sort of synthesized understanding. They are the point at which the information or events are first discovered or experienced. Things like scientific studies and witness testimony are primary sources. Those are great, but without an expansion on their understanding an answer is lacking. A good answer that depends on primary sources effectively becomes its own secondary source.