This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chocolateboy (talk | contribs) at 14:41, 17 February 2005 (→What should not be excluded: rm contradictory para). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:41, 17 February 2005 by Chocolateboy (talk | contribs) (→What should not be excluded: rm contradictory para)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Shortcut- ]
Misplaced Pages is not the place for original research such as "new" theories.
Misplaced Pages is not a primary source. Specific factual content is not the question. Misplaced Pages is a secondary source (one that analyzes, assimilates, evaluates, interprets, and/or synthesizes primary sources) or tertiary source (one that generalizes existing research or secondary sources of a specific subject under consideration). A Misplaced Pages entry is a report, not an essay. Please cite sources.
What is research and what is not
A wikipedia entry (including a 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 purports to refute another idea, or
- It introduces neologisms.
However all of the above may be acceptable content once they have become a permanent feature of the public landscape. A few examples of this include:
- The ideas have been accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal; or
- The ideas have become newsworthy: they have been repeatedly and independently reported in newspapers or news stories (such as the cold fusion story).
If you have a great idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Misplaced Pages, the best approach is to publish your results in a peer-reviewed journal, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner.
Classifying viewpoints by appropriateness
From a mailing list post by Jimbo Wales:
- If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.
- If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name "prominent" adherents .
- If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancilliary article), regardless if it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not .
How to deal with wikipedia entries about theories
For theories
- state the key concepts,
- state the known and popular ideas and identify general "consensus", making clear which is which, and
- Individual ideas (e.g. stuff made up) and unstable neologisms should either go to "votes for deletion" (because they "fail the test of confirmability", not because they are false), or be copyedited out.
What should not be excluded
The following are allowable (NOT excluded):
- Listing well-known claims which have few (or possibly just one or two) adherents (e.g. Shakespearean authorship theories or Linus Pauling's advocacy of Vitamin C)
- Listing notable claims which contradict established axioms, theories, or norms (e.g morphogenetic fields or conspiracy theories)
- Including research that fails to provide the possibility of reproducible results (e.g. theological or philosophical theories)
- Citing viewpoints that violate Occam's Razor, the principle of choosing the simplest explanation when multiple viable explanations are possible (e.g. Phlogiston, Aether)
Other options
- Places that do allow original research include Wikinfo, Everything 2 and Urban Dictionary.
See also
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.