Talk:Third-party source

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Business This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The paragraph on third party sources in journalism needs help. After an edition of a newspaper is published, does the newspaper publisher continue to "control" the document? Does the publisher "control" the editors or writers of newspaper articles? After a book author publishes and sells a book, does the book author continue to "control" the document?

In the example of the third-party source, is there a second party?

I attempted to wordsmith this article, but gave up when I realized I could not understand what it said. Is there an expert who could improve the article?

Wikfr (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problems noted by User:Wikfr seven years ago have not changed: this article is a mess. The first paragraph was confused, seemingly not clearly focused on whether it was talking about sellers and customers - to which its single citation related - or information generation. I deleted this first paragraph and applied the updated and archived citation to the second paragraph, to which it was more directly related.

Regarding the third paragraph, which I also deleted: in commerce and litigation, "first party" and "second party" are clearly defined and the term "third party" meaningful, but this is not the case in journalism - or encyclopedia's. The paragraph characterized an interviewee as the first party and the interviewer as the second party but this is wrong because the article is about kinds of sources and the interviewer is no source at all. While the interview does involve two parties, this fact has no bearing on the classification of sources related to an article based upon it because only one of those parties is a source. The logic that followed, about previously written material being "third party", collapses into irrelevance because without a clearly defined first party and a clearly defined second party, it makes no sense to talk about a third parties.

Dayirmiter (talk) 08:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect First party software. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]