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 00:46, 16 October 2006 view sourceConti (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,084 editsm revert: only the most common redirects are listed here usually.← Previous edit Revision as of 14:47, 23 October 2006 view source SlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 editsm →Neutral point of view (NPOV): fixed quoteNext edit →
(19 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
{{policy in a nutshell|Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position.}} {{policy in a nutshell|Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position.}}
{{Policylist}} {{Policylist}}
] 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.


'''Original research''' is a term used in Misplaced Pages to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Misplaced Pages's co-founder ], would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."
] 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 The ] upon which these three policies are based are non-negotiable on the English Misplaced Pages and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.


] 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 reliable sources that provide information '''directly related''' to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.
==Definition==


] (NOR) is one of three content policies. The other two are ] (NPOV) and ] (V). 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 try to familiarize themselves with all three. The ] upon which these three policies are based are non-negotiable on the English Misplaced Pages and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.
'''''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".


==What is excluded?==
==Primary and secondary sources==
The original motivation for the NOR policy was to prevent people with personal theories attempting to use Misplaced Pages to draw attention to their ideas. <ref>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." (Wales, Jimmy. , December 3, 2004) He has also said: "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." (Wales, Jimmy. , December 6, 2004)</ref> Original research excludes editors' personal views; political opinions; and any personal analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position the editor may hold. 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.
All sources must be ]


An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:
''']s''' present information or data, such as
*archeological artifacts
*photographs (but see below)
*historical documents such as a diary, census, video or transcript of surveillance, a public hearing, trial, or interviews
*tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires
*written or recorded records of laboratory assays or observations
*written or recorded records of field observations
*artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs (whether recorded in digital or analogue formats).
''']s''' present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, explanation or evaluation of information or data from other sources.

Research that creates primary sources is not allowed. All articles in 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. Articles which draw predominantly on primary sources are generally discouraged, in favor of articles based predominantly on secondary sources.

Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are relatively rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, ] or ]). An article or section of an article that relies on primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be exceptionally careful to comply with both conditions.

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's ].

==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 a theory or method of solution;
Line 43: Line 23:
* It ], without attributing the neologism to a reputable source. * It ], without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.


==Sources==
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.
===Reliable sources===
{{main|Misplaced Pages:Verifiability}}
Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be accompanied by a reliable source. Material that counts as "original research" within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it. The only way to show your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source who writes about the same claims or advances the same argument as you.


There is no firm definition of "reliable," although most of us have a good intuition about the meaning of the word. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by university presses; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals published by known publishing houses. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analysing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable, but see ] for exceptions.
== Why original research is excluded ==
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.


===Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources===
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.
*'''Primary sources''' are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source. The White House's summary of a president's speech is a primary source. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.


:Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as a diary, census, video or transcript of surveillance, a public hearing, trial, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded records of laboratory assays or observations; written or recorded records of field observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.
Applied to all editors, this policy helps secure our reputation in a number of important ways:


*'''Secondary sources''' are documents or people that summarize other material, usually primary source material. They are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce. A journalist's account of a traffic accident is a secondary source. A ''New York Times'' account of a president's speech is a secondary source. Misplaced Pages articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read the primary source material for themselves.
# 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.
*'''Tertiary sources''' are publications, such as encyclopedias, that sum up other secondary sources, and sometimes primary sources. Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source.
# 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. 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.
Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, ] or ]). An article or section of an article that relies on primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.


==Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position== ==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. 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): Here is an example from a Misplaced Pages article, with the names changed. The article was about Jones:


<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> <blockquote>Smith says that Jones committed ] by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, and says it's acceptable scholarly practise to use other people's books to find new references.</blockquote>


So far, so good. Now comes the new synthesis of published material: Now comes the unpublished synthesis of published material:


<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> <blockquote>If Jones's claim that he consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the '']'', which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The ''Chicago Manual of Style'' does not call violating this rule "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.</blockquote>


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. This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the ''Chicago Manual of Style's'' definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed ''that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute'' and makes the same point about the ''Chicago Manual of Style'' and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source ''in relation to the topic'' before it can be published in 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.

For this paragraph to be acceptable in the article about Jones, the editor would have to find a reliable source, which had commented on the Smith and Jones dispute and which had made the point:
: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''...etc.
In other words, that precise analysis must have been published already by a reliable source, and Misplaced Pages must not be the first place it is done.


== Citing oneself == == 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 ]. This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Misplaced Pages, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, then s/he may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our ]. See also Misplaced Pages's ].

== 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 ]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 ==
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", as it has a biased agenda to advance. In contrast, ''The New York Times'' is generally accepted as a trustworthy source: Misplaced Pages could refer to the article (and to the sources quoted in the article). The political or religious magazine could, however, be used as a source of information about the organization 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 == == 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 ] or another free license, to illustrate articles. There are several reasons this is welcomed: Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Misplaced Pages editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures and upload them, releasing them under the ] or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not ''propose unpublished ideas or arguments'', the core reason behind the NOR policy. Also, because of 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 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.
* 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.


==Related policies==
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 ].


===Verifiability (V)===
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 ].
{{main|Misplaced Pages:Verifiability}}
The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is '''verifiability, not truth'''. 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.


===Neutral point of view (NPOV)===
== Related policies and guidelines ==
{{main|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. 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 NPOV 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.


The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research. ], Misplaced Pages's founder, has said of this:
=== ] ===
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.


* If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is '''verifiability, not truth'''.
* If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
* "If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then &mdash; whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not &mdash; it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages, except perhaps in some ancilliary article. Misplaced Pages is not the place for original research." <ref>Wales, Jimmy. , September 29, 2003.</ref>


==Other options==
See ] for more detailed information, and ] for examples of citation styles.
*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.

=== ] ===
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 by ], 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 ] 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>

<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>

== 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 ] 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 ==
* ] 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 ]. * Misplaced Pages-style websites that allow original research but are not affiliated with the ] include ], ] and ].
Line 150: Line 85:


==See also== ==See also==

* {{tl|Original research}} - message used to warn of original research * {{tl|Original research}} - message used to warn of original research
* ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ] * ]


==References== ==Notes==
<references/>
* : Mailing list post by Jimbo Wales, July 12, 2003
* , Jimmy Wales, December 3, 2004
* Jimmy Wales, December 6, 2004
* Jimmy Wales, September 26, 2003
* Jimmy Wales, September 26, 2003 (followup to above)


== Further reading == ==Further reading==
*Wales, Jimmy. , mailing list, July 12, 2003.
* - a wiki welcoming original research
*Wales, Jimmy. , mailing list, September 26, 2003.
* , a proposal for a wiki for original research.
*Wales, Jimmy. , mailing list, September 26, 2003.
* - a wiki welcoming original research
*, a proposal for a wiki for original research.


] ]
Line 176: Line 107:
] ]
] ]
]
] ]
] ]

Revision as of 14:47, 23 October 2006

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 unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position.
Policies and guidelines (list)
Principles
Content policies
Conduct policies
Other policy categories
Directories

Original research is a term used in Misplaced Pages to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Misplaced Pages's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

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 that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.

Misplaced Pages:No original research (NOR) is one of three content policies. The other two are Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view (NPOV) and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability (V). 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 try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these three policies are based are non-negotiable on the English Misplaced Pages and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.

What is excluded?

The original motivation for the NOR policy was to prevent people with personal theories attempting to use Misplaced Pages to draw attention to their ideas. Original research excludes editors' personal views; political opinions; and any personal analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position the editor may hold. 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.

An edit counts as original research 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.

Sources

Reliable sources

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability

Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be accompanied by a reliable source. Material that counts as "original research" within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it. The only way to show your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source who writes about the same claims or advances the same argument as you.

There is no firm definition of "reliable," although most of us have a good intuition about the meaning of the word. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by university presses; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals published by known publishing houses. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analysing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable, but see Misplaced Pages:Verifiability for exceptions.

Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

  • Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source. The White House's summary of a president's speech is a primary source. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.
Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as a diary, census, video or transcript of surveillance, a public hearing, trial, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded records of laboratory assays or observations; written or recorded records of field observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.
  • Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize other material, usually primary source material. They are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce. A journalist's account of a traffic accident is a secondary source. A New York Times account of a president's speech is a secondary source. Misplaced Pages articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read the primary source material for themselves.
  • Tertiary sources are publications, such as encyclopedias, that sum up other secondary sources, and sometimes primary sources. Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source.

Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or Braunfeld v. Brown). An article or section of an article that relies on primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.

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.

Here is an example from a Misplaced Pages article, with the names changed. The article was about Jones:

Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, and says it's acceptable scholarly practise to use other people's books to find new references.

Now comes the unpublished synthesis of published material:

If Jones's claim that he consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Chicago Manual of Style does not call violating this rule "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 expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Chicago Manual of Style and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Misplaced Pages.

Citing oneself

This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Misplaced Pages, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, then s/he may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. See also Misplaced Pages's guidelines on conflict of interest.

Original images

Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Misplaced Pages editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Also, because of 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 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.

Related policies

Verifiability (V)

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability

The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. 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.

Neutral point of view (NPOV)

Main page: 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. 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 NPOV 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.

The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research. Jimbo Wales, Misplaced Pages's founder, has said of this:

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

Other options

See also

Notes

  1. 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." (Wales, Jimmy. "Original research", December 3, 2004) He has also said: "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." (Wales, Jimmy. "Original research", December 6, 2004)
  2. Wales, Jimmy. "WikiEN-l roy_q_royce@hotmail.com: --A Request RE a WIKIArticle--", September 29, 2003.

Further reading

Category: