Misplaced Pages

:No original research: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:05, 13 February 2004 view sourceReddi (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users58,350 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 15:27, 13 February 2004 view source Reddi (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users58,350 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
] the place for original research such as "new" theories. Misplaced Pages is not a ]. Specific factual content is not the question. ] the place for original research such as "new" theories.

Misplaced Pages is not a ]. Specific factual content is not the question. Misplaced Pages is a ] (one that analyzes, assimilates, evaluates, interprets, and/or synthesizes primary sources) or ] (one that generalizes existing research of a specific subject under consideration).


From by ]: From by ]:

Revision as of 15:27, 13 February 2004

Misplaced Pages is not the place for original research such as "new" theories.

Misplaced Pages is not a primary source. Specific factual content is not the question. Misplaced Pages is a secondary source (one that analyzes, assimilates, evaluates, interprets, and/or synthesizes primary sources) or tertiary source (one that generalizes existing research of a specific subject under consideration).

From a mailing list post by Jimbo Wales:

  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name "prominent" adherents .
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancilliary article), regardless if it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not.

For theories:

  1. State the valid concepts,
  2. State the known and popular ideas and identify general "consensus", and
  3. Individual ideas (eg. stuff made up) should either goto 'votes for deletion' or be copyedited out.

The following are NOT grounds for exclusion:

  1. Listing claims which have little or no supporting evidence;
  2. Listing claims which contradict established conditions, explainations, or soulutions;
  3. Including research that fails to provide an possibility of reproducible results; or
  4. Citing viewpoints that violate Occam's Razor (the principle of choosing the simplest explanation when multiple viable explanations are possible).

Further reading:

Other encyclopedias

Places that do allow original research include the Internet-Encyclopedia and Everything 2.