Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:53, 24 August 2005

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.

• ]

Misplaced Pages is not the place for original research. citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to verify that you are not doing original research is to cite your sources.

What is original research?

The phrase "original research" refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Misplaced Pages's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

In summary, if the facts, opinions, or arguments you want to include in an article have not been published by a credible or reputable publication, you're engaged in original research.

What is excluded from articles?

A Misplaced Pages entry (including any part of an article) counts as original research if it proposes ideas; that is:

• it introduces a theory or method of solution; or
• it introduces original ideas; or
• it defines new terms; or
• it provides new definitions of old terms; or
• it introduces an argument without citing a reputable source, which purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; or
• it introduces or uses neologisms.

All of the above may be acceptable content once it has become a permanent feature of the public landscape. For example:

• the ideas have been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal; or
• the ideas have become newsworthy: they have been independently reported in newspapers or news stories (such as the cold fusion story).

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.

The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean that material is bad – Misplaced Pages is simply 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.

Subject experts

"No original research" does not mean that experts on a specific topic cannot contribute to Misplaced Pages. Indeed, Misplaced Pages welcomes experts and academics. However, such experts do not occupy a privileged position within Misplaced Pages. They should refer to themselves and their publications in the third person and write from a neutral point of view (NPOV). They must also cite publications, and may not use their unpublished knowledge as a source of information, because it would be impossible for readers and other editors to verify.

Why do we exclude original research?

This policy is one of three content polices. The other two are Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. It is important for several reasons:

1. It's 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 Misplaced Pages:No_original_research#What_counts_as_a_reputable_publication? for a discussion on how to judge whether a source is reliable.
2. Credible sources provide readers with resources they may consult to pursue their own research. After all, some people turn to encyclopedias as a first step in research, not as a last step.
3. Relying on citable sources helps clarify what points of view are represented in an article, and thus helps us comply with our NPOV policy.
4. 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.

How to deal with Misplaced Pages entries about theories

For theories:

1. state the key concepts;
2. 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 "votes for deletion" (because they "fail the test of confirmability", not because they are necessarily false), or should be copyedited out.

Primary and secondary sources

Original research is research that creates primary sources or secondary sources. Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; photographs; 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.

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 strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Misplaced Pages should be based on information collected from 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 that are easily verifiable by any reasonable adult, 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).

In most cases, however, Misplaced Pages articles are based on both primary and secondary sources. 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 used in an article has been published or otherwise made available to people who do not rely on Misplaced Pages. Moreover, it is essential that any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data come from a secondary source that is available to readers (e.g. in a library or non-Misplaced Pages web-page). It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can verify any claims made in the article.

In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. In such cases, articles 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 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.

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 a Socialist Workers' Party magazine to publish a statement about President Bush being gay. 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 magazine 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.

Verifiability, not truth

One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have been published by a reputable publisher. The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages entries is verifiability, not truth.

A good way to look at this distinction is with the following example. Suppose you are writing a Misplaced Pages entry on physicist Stephen Hawking's Theory X. Theory X has been published in peer-reviewed journals and is therefore an appropriate subject for a Misplaced Pages article. However, in the course of writing the article, you meet Hawking, and over a beer, he tells you: "Actually, I think Theory X is a load of rubbish." Even though you have this from the author himself, you cannot include the fact that he told you this in your Misplaced Pages entry. Why not? The answer is that it is not verifiable in a way that would satisfy the Misplaced Pages readership. The readers don't know who you are. You can't include your telephone number so that every reader in the world can call you directly for confirmation. And even if they could do this, why should they believe you?

Suppose you were firmly convinced that this new information should be published in Misplaced Pages, and that to fail to do so would be intellectually dishonest. How would you go about getting it into Misplaced Pages? For the information to be acceptable to Misplaced Pages, you would have to contact a reputable news organization – The Times of London, for example – and explain to them what Hawking told you. You might have a tape recording of the conversation that you could let them hear; or perhaps they would interview you. Whatever they chose to do with the information, the story would go through a process similar to peer review before being published: it would be checked by a reporter, an editor, and perhaps by the lawyers and the editor-in-chief. Hawking would have an opportunity to respond, as would his publisher, and other members of the academic community would be approached for comment. These checks and balances exist to ensure that only accurate and fair stories appear in the newspaper. It is this process that Misplaced Pages is not in a position to provide, which is why the policy of no original research is an important one.

If The Times published the story, you could then include the information in your Misplaced Pages entry. However, if you're unable to find anyone to publish it, or if you can only secure publication in a news outlet that does not have a good reputation, then the material has no place in Misplaced Pages even if you know it to be true. See Misplaced Pages:Verifiability.

Tiny-minority views

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. When incorporating research into an article, it is important to situate the research; that is, to 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 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.

Origin of this policy: the opinion of Misplaced Pages's founder

Misplaced Pages's founder, Jimbo Wales, has described original research 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" (WikiEN-l, December 3, 2004).

An article that makes no new low-level claims, but nonetheless synthesizes work in a non-standard way, is effectively original research that I think we ought not to publish. This comes up most often in history, where there is a tendency by some Wikipedians to produce novel narratives and historical interpretations with citation to primary sources to back up their interpretation of events. Even if their citations are accurate, Misplaced Pages's poorly equipped to judge whether their particular synthesis of the available information is a reasonable one. ... I think in part this is just a symptom of an unfortunate tendency of disrespect for history as a professional discipline. 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" (WikiEN-l, December 6, 2004).

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.

• Places not run by the Wikimedia Foundation that allow original research include Wikinfo, Everything 2 and Urban Dictionary.

See also

• Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view
• Google test
• Misplaced Pages:Verifiability
• Misplaced Pages:Cite sources

External links

• Crackpot articles: Mailing list post by Jimbo Wales.
• A Request RE a WIKIArticle: Mailing list post by Jimbo Wales.
• Wikiresearch, a proposal for a wiki for original research.

• Misplaced Pages policies