| Revision as of 06:28, 15 March 2006 view sourceYurikBot (talk | contribs)278,165 editsm robot Modifying: pl← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:49, 5 September 2006 view source Slrubenstein (talk | contribs)30,655 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| (359 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{protected}} | |||
| {{policy2|]<br>]}} | {{policy2|]<br>]}} | ||
| {{policy in a nutshell|Articles may not contain any unpublished |
{{policy in a nutshell|Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any ''new analysis or synthesis'' of published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements that serves to advance a position.}} | ||
| {{Policylist}} | {{Policylist}} | ||
| ] the place for original research. ] and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to |
] the place for original research. ] and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite ] which provide information that is '''directly related''' to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say. | ||
| ] is one of three content policies. The other two are ] and ]. |
] is one of three content-governing policies. The other two are ] and ]. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main ]. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these three policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and explanation of the principles. | ||
| ==Definition== | |||
| ⚫ | == |
||
| {{Associations/Wikipedia Bad Things}} | |||
| '''Original research''' is a term used |
'''''Original research''''' is a term used in Misplaced Pages to refer to material placed in articles by Misplaced Pages users that has not been previously published by a ]. It includes unpublished material, for example, arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories, or any new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Misplaced Pages's co-founder ], that would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". | ||
| ==Primary and secondary sources== | |||
| *''']s''' present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; film, video or photographs (but see below); historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations. |
* ''']s''' present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; film, video or photographs (but see below); historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations. | ||
| *''']s''' present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data from other sources. | * ''']s''' present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data from other sources. | ||
| Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Misplaced Pages should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. | Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Misplaced Pages should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. | ||
| In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Misplaced Pages article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include ] or ]), but these are exceptions. |
In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Misplaced Pages article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include ] or ]), but these are exceptions. | ||
| Misplaced Pages articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate. In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Misplaced Pages articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Misplaced Pages) or through a public library. It is very important to ] appropriately, so that readers can find your source and can satisfy themselves that Misplaced Pages has used the source correctly. | Misplaced Pages articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate. In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Misplaced Pages articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Misplaced Pages) or through a public library. It is very important to ] appropriately, so that readers can find your source and can satisfy themselves that Misplaced Pages has used the source correctly. | ||
| In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy and of the different authorities or sources. Such an account also helps ensure the article |
In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy and of the different authorities or sources. Such an account also helps ensure the article's ]. | ||
| ⚫ | ==What is excluded?== | ||
| ==Why do we exclude original research?== | |||
| ⚫ | An edit counts as original research if it '''proposes''' ideas or arguments. That is, if it does any of the following: | ||
| ⚫ | * It introduces a theory or method of solution; | ||
| The original motivation for the ''no original research'' policy was to combat a real issue: people with personal theories that very few people take seriously, such as ]s and ], would attempt to use Misplaced Pages to draw attention to these theories and to themselves. It is clear that this material does not belong at Misplaced Pages, but it's difficult to exclude it under other policies: often the cranks will cite their own irreputable publications, providing verifiability, and choose theories that are difficult to prove false. But precisely because the expert community does not take their work seriously, they are almost never published in a reputable peer-reviewed publication, allowing us to apply this rule. | |||
| ⚫ | * It introduces original ideas; | ||
| ⚫ | * It defines new terms; | ||
| ⚫ | * It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms; | ||
| ⚫ | * It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; | ||
| ⚫ | * It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; | ||
| ⚫ | * It ], without attributing the neologism to a reputable source. | ||
| ⚫ | The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean the material is ''bad'' — it simply means that Misplaced Pages is not the proper venue for it. We would have to turn away even ]-level journalism and ]-level science if its authors tried to publish it first on Misplaced Pages. If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Misplaced Pages, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately ] manner. | ||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | == Why original research is excluded == | ||
| ⚫ | # It is an obligation of Misplaced Pages to its readers that the information they read here be reliable and reputable, and so we rely only on credible or reputable published sources. See "]" and "]" for discussions on how to judge whether a source is reliable. |
||
| The original motivation for the ''no original research'' policy was to combat people with personal theories, such as ]s and ], who would attempt to use Misplaced Pages to draw attention to their ideas and to themselves. | |||
| However, original research is more than just ''no personal crank theories''. It also excludes editors' personal views, political opinions, their personal analysis or interpretation of published material, as well as any unpublished synthesis of published material, where such a synthesis appears to advance a position or opinion an editor may hold, or to support an argument or definition s/he may be trying to propose. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Misplaced Pages must already have been published by a reliable publication ''in relation to the topic of the article''. See ] for more details. | |||
| ⚫ | Applied to all editors, this policy helps secure our reputation in a number of important ways: | ||
| ⚫ | # It is an obligation of Misplaced Pages to its readers that the information they read here be reliable and reputable, and so we rely only on credible or reputable published sources. See "]" and "]" for discussions on how to judge whether a source is reliable. | ||
| # Credible sources provide readers with resources they may consult to pursue their own research. After all, there are people who turn to encyclopedias as a first step in research, not as a last step. | # Credible sources provide readers with resources they may consult to pursue their own research. After all, there are people who turn to encyclopedias as a first step in research, not as a last step. | ||
| # Relying on citable sources helps clarify what points of view are represented in an article, and thus helps us comply with our ] policy. | # Relying on citable sources helps clarify what points of view are represented in an article, and thus helps us comply with our ] (neutral point of view) policy. | ||
| # Relying on credible sources also may encourage new contributors. |
# Relying on credible sources also may encourage new contributors. For example, if someone knows of an important source that the article has ''not'' drawn on, he or she may feel more confident in adding important material to the article. | ||
| ==Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position== | |||
| ⚫ | ==What is excluded?== | ||
| Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. | |||
| ⚫ | An edit counts as original research if it '''proposes''' ideas or arguments. That is: | ||
| An example from a Misplaced Pages article (note that the article is about Jones, not about plagiarism in general): | |||
| ⚫ | * |
||
| ⚫ | * |
||
| ⚫ | * |
||
| ⚫ | * |
||
| ⚫ | * |
||
| ⚫ | * |
||
| ⚫ | * |
||
| <blockquote>Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism in Jones's ''Flower-Arranging: The Real Story'' by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, saying he is guilty only of good scholarly practice because he gave citations for the references he had learned about in the other book.</blockquote> | |||
| If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Misplaced Pages, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately ] manner. | |||
| So far, so good. Now comes the new synthesis of published material: | |||
| ⚫ | The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean the material is ''bad'' |
||
| <blockquote>If Jones's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the ''Chicago Manual of Style'' as well as Harvard's student writing manual, both of which require citation of the source actually consulted. Neither manual calls violations of this rule on citing original sources "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.</blockquote> | |||
| ==The role of expert editors== | |||
| "No original research" does not mean that experts on a specific topic cannot contribute to Misplaced Pages. On the contrary, Misplaced Pages welcomes experts. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge ''if'' such knowledge is ]. If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the editor can ] while writing in the ] and complying with our ]. They must cite ''publications'', and may not use their ''unpublished knowledge'' as a source of information (which would be impossible to verify). | |||
| This entire paragraph is original research, because it is the editor's own synthesis of published material serving to advance his definition and opinion of plagiarism and whether Jones committed it. The editor is citing good sources about best practice (''Chicago Manual of Style'' and Harvard's student writing manual). In an article about plagiarism, some of the points he makes might be acceptable, so long as he provided links or citations to the sources. | |||
| Otherwise, we hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of other published sources to enrich our articles. However, such experts do not occupy a privileged position within Misplaced Pages. | |||
| But in an article about Jones, the paragraph is putting forward the editor's opinion that, given a certain definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. Regardless of the fact that his opinion appears to be supported, other things being equal, by the ''Chicago Manual of Style'', it remains the editor's opinion. | |||
| ==How to deal with Misplaced Pages entries about theories== | |||
| For this paragraph to be acceptable in the article about Jones, the editor would have to find a reliable source '''who had commented on the Smith and Jones dispute''' and who had himself made the point that: "If Jones's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the ''Chicago Manual of Style''..." and so on. That is, '''that precise argument, or combination of material, must have been published by a reliable source ''in the context of the topic the article is about'''''. | |||
| == Citing oneself == | |||
| "No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Misplaced Pages. It does, however, prohibit expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. Misplaced Pages welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as these contributions come from ] (i.e. published) sources. Thus, if an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, then the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our ]. We further hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of other published sources to enrich our articles. While specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Misplaced Pages, they are often familiar with and have access to a wider range of verifiable sources and can thus be of special assistance in verifying or citing sources. See also Misplaced Pages's ]. | |||
| == Explaining theories == | |||
| For theories: | For theories: | ||
| # |
# State the key concepts; | ||
| # |
# State the known and popular ideas and identify general "''consensus''", making clear which is which, and bearing in mind that extreme-minority theories or views need not be included. | ||
| Unstable ]s, and ideas stemming from one individual who is not an authority, or from a small group of such individuals, should either go to ] (because they "fail the test of confirmability", not because they are necessarily false), or should be copyedited out. | Unstable ]s, and ideas stemming from one individual who is not an authority, or from a small group of such individuals, should either go to ] (because they "fail the test of confirmability", not because they are necessarily false), or should be copyedited out. | ||
| == Reputable publications == | |||
| ==What counts as a reputable publication?== | |||
| Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications. | Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications. | ||
| For non-academic subjects, it is impossible to pin down a clear definition of "reputable |
For non-academic subjects, it is impossible to pin down a clear definition of "reputable." In general, most of us have a good intuition about the meaning of the word. A magazine or press release self-published by a very extreme political or religious group would often not be regarded as "reputable." For example, Misplaced Pages would not rely only on an article in the Socialist Workers' Party's newspaper ''The Militant'' to publish a statement claiming that President Bush hates children. However, if that same claim was in ''The New York Times'', then Misplaced Pages could refer to the article (and to the sources quoted in the article). The political newspaper could, however, be used as a source of information about the party itself. | ||
| Ask yourself some questions when you are evaluating a publication. Is it openly partisan? Does it have a large or very small readership? Is it a vanity publisher? Is it run principally by a single person, or does it have a large, permanent staff? Does it seem to have any system of peer review, or do you get the feeling that it shoots from the hip? If you heard that the publication you are about to use as a source was considering publishing a very negative article about you, would you (a) be terrified because you suspect they are irresponsible and do not fact-check; or (b) feel somewhat reassured because the publication employs several layers of editing staff, fact-checkers, lawyers, an editor-in-chief, and a publisher, and will usually correct its mistakes? If it is (a), do not use it as a source. If it is (b), it is what Misplaced Pages calls "reputable |
Ask yourself some questions when you are evaluating a publication. Is it openly partisan? Does it have a large or very small readership? Is it a vanity publisher? Is it run principally by a single person, or does it have a large, permanent staff? Does it seem to have any system of peer review, or do you get the feeling that it shoots from the hip? If you heard that the publication you are about to use as a source was considering publishing a very negative article about you, would you (a) be terrified because you suspect they are irresponsible and do not fact-check; or (b) feel somewhat reassured because the publication employs several layers of editing staff, fact-checkers, lawyers, an editor-in-chief, and a publisher, and will usually correct its mistakes? If it is (a), do not use it as a source. If it is (b), it is what Misplaced Pages calls "reputable." | ||
| When dispute arises regarding whether a publication is reputable, you can attempt to get more editors involved and work toward a consensus. There is no clear definition, but don't ignore your intuition. | When dispute arises regarding whether a publication is reputable, you can attempt to get more editors involved and work toward a consensus. There is no clear definition, but don't ignore your intuition. | ||
| ==Original images== | == Original images == | ||
| Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from the NOR policy |
Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from the no-original-research policy (sometimes called the NOR policy) in that Misplaced Pages editors have always been encouraged to take photos or draw pictures and upload them, releasing them under the ] or another free license, to illustrate articles. There are several reasons this is welcomed: | ||
| ⚫ | *Pictures are generally used for illustration and do not ''propose unpublished ideas or arguments'', the core reason behind the NOR policy. | ||
| ⚫ | *Due to copyright law in a number of countries and its relationship to the work of building a 💕, there are relatively few publicly available images we can take and use. Misplaced Pages editors' pictures fill a needed role. | ||
| ⚫ | * Pictures are generally used for illustration and do not ''propose unpublished ideas or arguments'', the core reason behind the NOR, or no original research, policy. | ||
| ⚫ | A known disadvantage of allowing original photographs to be uploaded is the possibility of editors using ] to distort the facts or position being illustrated by the photo. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such and, if they are not, should be posted to ] |
||
| ⚫ | * Due to copyright law in a number of countries and its relationship to the work of building a 💕, there are relatively few publicly available images we can take and use. Misplaced Pages editors' pictures fill a needed role. | ||
| ⚫ | A known disadvantage of allowing original photographs to be uploaded is the possibility of editors using ] to distort the facts or position being illustrated by the photo. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such and, if they are not, should be posted to ]. | ||
| Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader. All uploaded pictures are subject to Misplaced Pages's other policies and guidelines, notably ], and ]. | Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader. All uploaded pictures are subject to Misplaced Pages's other policies and guidelines, notably ], and ]. | ||
| ==Related policies and guidelines== | == Related policies and guidelines == | ||
| ===]=== | === ] === | ||
| By insisting that only facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher may be published in Misplaced Pages, the no-original-research and verifiability policies reinforce one another. | By insisting that only facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher may be published in Misplaced Pages, the no-original-research and verifiability policies reinforce one another. | ||
| Line 88: | Line 106: | ||
| See ] for more detailed information, and ] for examples of citation styles. | See ] for more detailed information, and ] for examples of citation styles. | ||
| ===]=== | === ] === | ||
| The prohibition against original research limits the possibility of an editor presenting his or her own point of view in an article. Moreover, by reinforcing the importance of including verifiable research produced by others, this policy promotes the inclusion of multiple points of view in an article. |
The prohibition against original research limits the possibility of an editor presenting his or her own point of view in an article. Moreover, by reinforcing the importance of including verifiable research produced by others, this policy promotes the inclusion of multiple points of view in an article. Consequently, this policy reinforces our '''neutral point of view''' policy. | ||
| In many cases, there are multiple established views of any given topic. In such cases, no single position, no matter how well researched, is authoritative. It is not the responsibility of any one editor to research ''all'' points of view. |
In many cases, there are multiple established views of any given topic. In such cases, no single position, no matter how well researched, is authoritative. It is not the responsibility of any one editor to research ''all'' points of view. But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors situate the research; that is, provide contextual information about the point of view, indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority. | ||
| ==== |
==== How to determine whether a view is established ==== | ||
| The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research because there may be a lack of sufficiently credible, third-party, published sources to back it up. | The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research because there may be a lack of sufficiently credible, third-party, published sources to back it up. | ||
| Line 100: | Line 118: | ||
| * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; | * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it 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 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 ancillary article) ''regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.'' |
* If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) ''regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.'' | ||
| See ] for more detailed information. | See ] for more detailed information. | ||
| == |
== Policy origin: the opinion of Misplaced Pages's founder == | ||
| ⚫ | Misplaced Pages's founder, Jimbo Wales, has described the origin of the original research policy as follows: | ||
| ⚫ | <blockquote>The phrase "original research" originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the Web. The basic concept is as follows: It can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is ''true'' or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid; we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we ''can'' do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide. The exact same principle will hold true for history." </blockquote> | ||
| ⚫ | Misplaced Pages's founder, Jimbo Wales, has described original research as follows: | ||
| ⚫ | <blockquote>The phrase "original research" originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the Web. The basic concept is as follows: It can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is ''true'' or not. |
||
| <blockquote>Some who completely understand why Misplaced Pages ought not create novel theories of | <blockquote>Some who completely understand why Misplaced Pages ought not create novel theories of | ||
| physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history. </blockquote> | physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history. </blockquote> | ||
| ==On talk pages and project pages== | == On talk pages and project pages == | ||
| Like most Misplaced Pages policies, ''No original research'' applies to articles, not to talk pages or project pages, although it is regarded as poor taste to discuss personal theories on talk pages. | Like most Misplaced Pages policies, ''No original research'' applies to articles, not to talk pages or project pages, although it is regarded as poor taste to discuss personal theories on talk pages. | ||
| A few pages have been created devoted to research into issues related to Misplaced Pages; for instance ] and ]. These pages may contain original research; that is, research for which there is no reference other than projects in the Misplaced Pages namespace. Original research that does not have Misplaced Pages as its object should, however, be avoided on these pages too. | A few pages have been created devoted to research into issues related to Misplaced Pages; for instance ] and ]. These pages may contain original research; that is, research for which there is no reference other than projects in the Misplaced Pages namespace. Original research that does not have Misplaced Pages as its object should, however, be avoided on these pages too. | ||
| ==Other options== | == Other options == | ||
| *] allows original research, see for instance ], ], ], ], ], and ]. | * ] allows original research, see for instance ], ], ], ], ], and ]. | ||
| ⚫ | * Misplaced Pages-style websites that allow original research but are not affiliated with the ] include ], ] and ]. | ||
| * ] allows original reporting. See ] on Wikinews for more information. | |||
| ⚫ | *Misplaced Pages-style websites that allow original research but are not affiliated with the ] include ], ] and ]. | ||
| ==See also== | ==See also== | ||
| *] | |||
| * {{tl|Original research}} - message used to warn of original research | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | * ] | ||
| *] | * ] | ||
| *] | * ] | ||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| ==References== | ==References== | ||
| * : Mailing list post by Jimbo Wales, July 12, 2003 | * : Mailing list post by Jimbo Wales, July 12, 2003 | ||
| *, Jimmy Wales, December 3, 2004 | * , Jimmy Wales, December 3, 2004 | ||
| * Jimmy Wales, December 6, 2004 | * Jimmy Wales, December 6, 2004 | ||
| * Jimmy Wales, September 26, 2003 | * Jimmy Wales, September 26, 2003 | ||
| * Jimmy Wales, September 26, 2003 (followup to above) | * Jimmy Wales, September 26, 2003 (followup to above) | ||
| ==Further reading== | == Further reading == | ||
| * - a wiki welcoming original research | * - a wiki welcoming original research | ||
| * , a proposal for a wiki for original research. | * , a proposal for a wiki for original research. | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| Line 150: | Line 173: | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
Revision as of 20:49, 5 September 2006
 | Editing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you can submit an edit request, discuss changes on the talk page, request unprotection, log in, or create an account. |
 | This page documents an English Misplaced Pages policy.It describes a widely accepted standard that editors should normally follow, though exceptions may apply. Changes made to it should reflect consensus. | Shortcut
|
 | This page in a nutshell: Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements that serves to advance a position. |
| Policies and guidelines (list) |
|---|
| Principles |
| Content policies |
| Conduct policies |
| Other policy categories |
| Directories |
Misplaced Pages is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.
Misplaced Pages:No original research is one of three content-governing policies. The other two are Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these three policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and explanation of the principles.
Definition
Template:Associations/Wikipedia Bad Things
Original research is a term used in Misplaced Pages to refer to material placed in articles by Misplaced Pages users that has not been previously published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished material, for example, arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories, or any new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Misplaced Pages's co-founder Jimbo Wales, that would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".
Primary and secondary sources
- Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; film, video or photographs (but see below); historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations.
- Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data from other sources.
Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Misplaced Pages should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.
In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Misplaced Pages article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions.
Misplaced Pages articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate. In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Misplaced Pages articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Misplaced Pages) or through a public library. It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can find your source and can satisfy themselves that Misplaced Pages has used the source correctly.
In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy and of the different authorities or sources. Such an account also helps ensure the article's neutral point of view.
What is excluded?
An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is, if it does any of the following:
- It introduces a theory or method of solution;
- It introduces original ideas;
- It defines new terms;
- It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
- It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
- It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
- It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.
The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean the material is bad — it simply means that Misplaced Pages is not the proper venue for it. We would have to turn away even Pulitzer-level journalism and Nobel-level science if its authors tried to publish it first on Misplaced Pages. If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Misplaced Pages, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner.
Why original research is excluded
The original motivation for the no original research policy was to combat people with personal theories, such as cranks and trolls, who would attempt to use Misplaced Pages to draw attention to their ideas and to themselves.
However, original research is more than just no personal crank theories. It also excludes editors' personal views, political opinions, their personal analysis or interpretation of published material, as well as any unpublished synthesis of published material, where such a synthesis appears to advance a position or opinion an editor may hold, or to support an argument or definition s/he may be trying to propose. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Misplaced Pages must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article. See this example for more details.
Applied to all editors, this policy helps secure our reputation in a number of important ways:
- It is an obligation of Misplaced Pages to its readers that the information they read here be reliable and reputable, and so we rely only on credible or reputable published sources. See "What counts as a reputable publication?" and "Reliable sources" for discussions on how to judge whether a source is reliable.
- Credible sources provide readers with resources they may consult to pursue their own research. After all, there are people who turn to encyclopedias as a first step in research, not as a last step.
- Relying on citable sources helps clarify what points of view are represented in an article, and thus helps us comply with our NPOV (neutral point of view) policy.
- Relying on credible sources also may encourage new contributors. For example, if someone knows of an important source that the article has not drawn on, he or she may feel more confident in adding important material to the article.
Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position
Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.
An example from a Misplaced Pages article (note that the article is about Jones, not about plagiarism in general):
Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism in Jones's Flower-Arranging: The Real Story by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, saying he is guilty only of good scholarly practice because he gave citations for the references he had learned about in the other book.
So far, so good. Now comes the new synthesis of published material:
If Jones's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style as well as Harvard's student writing manual, both of which require citation of the source actually consulted. Neither manual calls violations of this rule on citing original sources "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.
This entire paragraph is original research, because it is the editor's own synthesis of published material serving to advance his definition and opinion of plagiarism and whether Jones committed it. The editor is citing good sources about best practice (Chicago Manual of Style and Harvard's student writing manual). In an article about plagiarism, some of the points he makes might be acceptable, so long as he provided links or citations to the sources.
But in an article about Jones, the paragraph is putting forward the editor's opinion that, given a certain definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. Regardless of the fact that his opinion appears to be supported, other things being equal, by the Chicago Manual of Style, it remains the editor's opinion.
For this paragraph to be acceptable in the article about Jones, the editor would have to find a reliable source who had commented on the Smith and Jones dispute and who had himself made the point that: "If Jones's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style..." and so on. That is, that precise argument, or combination of material, must have been published by a reliable source in the context of the topic the article is about.
Citing oneself
"No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Misplaced Pages. It does, however, prohibit expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. Misplaced Pages welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as these contributions come from verifiable (i.e. published) sources. Thus, if an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, then the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. We further hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of other published sources to enrich our articles. While specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Misplaced Pages, they are often familiar with and have access to a wider range of verifiable sources and can thus be of special assistance in verifying or citing sources. See also Misplaced Pages's guidelines on conflict of interest.
Explaining theories
For theories:
- State the key concepts;
- State the known and popular ideas and identify general "consensus", making clear which is which, and bearing in mind that extreme-minority theories or views need not be included.
Unstable neologisms, and ideas stemming from one individual who is not an authority, or from a small group of such individuals, should either go to articles for deletion (because they "fail the test of confirmability", not because they are necessarily false), or should be copyedited out.
Reputable publications
Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications.
For non-academic subjects, it is impossible to pin down a clear definition of "reputable." In general, most of us have a good intuition about the meaning of the word. A magazine or press release self-published by a very extreme political or religious group would often not be regarded as "reputable." For example, Misplaced Pages would not rely only on an article in the Socialist Workers' Party's newspaper The Militant to publish a statement claiming that President Bush hates children. However, if that same claim was in The New York Times, then Misplaced Pages could refer to the article (and to the sources quoted in the article). The political newspaper could, however, be used as a source of information about the party itself.
Ask yourself some questions when you are evaluating a publication. Is it openly partisan? Does it have a large or very small readership? Is it a vanity publisher? Is it run principally by a single person, or does it have a large, permanent staff? Does it seem to have any system of peer review, or do you get the feeling that it shoots from the hip? If you heard that the publication you are about to use as a source was considering publishing a very negative article about you, would you (a) be terrified because you suspect they are irresponsible and do not fact-check; or (b) feel somewhat reassured because the publication employs several layers of editing staff, fact-checkers, lawyers, an editor-in-chief, and a publisher, and will usually correct its mistakes? If it is (a), do not use it as a source. If it is (b), it is what Misplaced Pages calls "reputable."
When dispute arises regarding whether a publication is reputable, you can attempt to get more editors involved and work toward a consensus. There is no clear definition, but don't ignore your intuition.
Original images
Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from the no-original-research policy (sometimes called the NOR policy) in that Misplaced Pages editors have always been encouraged to take photos or draw pictures and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. There are several reasons this is welcomed:
- Pictures are generally used for illustration and do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR, or no original research, policy.
- Due to copyright law in a number of countries and its relationship to the work of building a 💕, there are relatively few publicly available images we can take and use. Misplaced Pages editors' pictures fill a needed role.
A known disadvantage of allowing original photographs to be uploaded is the possibility of editors using photo manipulation to distort the facts or position being illustrated by the photo. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such and, if they are not, should be posted to Misplaced Pages:Images for deletion.
Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader. All uploaded pictures are subject to Misplaced Pages's other policies and guidelines, notably Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, and Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view.
Related policies and guidelines
Misplaced Pages:Verifiability
By insisting that only facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher may be published in Misplaced Pages, the no-original-research and verifiability policies reinforce one another.
The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth.
See Misplaced Pages:Verifiability for more detailed information, and Misplaced Pages:Cite sources for examples of citation styles.
Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view
The prohibition against original research limits the possibility of an editor presenting his or her own point of view in an article. Moreover, by reinforcing the importance of including verifiable research produced by others, this policy promotes the inclusion of multiple points of view in an article. Consequently, this policy reinforces our neutral point of view policy.
In many cases, there are multiple established views of any given topic. In such cases, no single position, no matter how well researched, is authoritative. It is not the responsibility of any one editor to research all points of view. But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors situate the research; that is, provide contextual information about the point of view, indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority.
How to determine whether a view is established
The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research because there may be a lack of sufficiently credible, third-party, published sources to back it up.
From a mailing list post by Jimbo Wales, Misplaced Pages's founder:
- If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it 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 ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
See Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view for more detailed information.
Policy origin: the opinion of Misplaced Pages's founder
Misplaced Pages's founder, Jimbo Wales, has described the origin of the original research policy as follows:
The phrase "original research" originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the Web. The basic concept is as follows: It can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is true or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid; we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide. The exact same principle will hold true for history."
Some who completely understand why Misplaced Pages ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history.
On talk pages and project pages
Like most Misplaced Pages policies, No original research applies to articles, not to talk pages or project pages, although it is regarded as poor taste to discuss personal theories on talk pages.
A few pages have been created devoted to research into issues related to Misplaced Pages; for instance Misplaced Pages:Statistics Department and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Wikidemia. These pages may contain original research; that is, research for which there is no reference other than projects in the Misplaced Pages namespace. Original research that does not have Misplaced Pages as its object should, however, be avoided on these pages too.
Other options
- Meta-Wiki allows original research, see for instance m:research, m:Wikiresearch, m:Wikimedia Research Network, m:wikiversity, m:category:research, and m:statistics.
- Misplaced Pages-style websites that allow original research but are not affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation include Wikinfo, Everything 2 and Urban Dictionary.
- Wikinews allows original reporting. See the Original Reporting page on Wikinews for more information.
See also
- {{Original research}} - message used to warn of original research
- Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view
- Search engine test
- Misplaced Pages:Verifiability
- Misplaced Pages:Cite sources
- Misplaced Pages:Template messages/Disputes
References
- Crackpot articles: Mailing list post by Jimbo Wales, July 12, 2003
- "Original research", Jimmy Wales, December 3, 2004
- "Original research" Jimmy Wales, December 6, 2004
- "NPOV and 'new physics'" Jimmy Wales, September 26, 2003
- "NPOV and 'new physics'" Jimmy Wales, September 26, 2003 (followup to above)
Further reading
- Academic Publishing Wiki - a wiki welcoming original research
- Wikiresearch, a proposal for a wiki for original research.