Jump to content

Wikipedia:No original research: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SlimVirgin (talk | contribs)
172,064 edits
rv that isn't true -- secondary sources do not need a reputation for unbiased reporting; we have to use biased secondary sources all the time per NPOV
Line 39: Line 39:
*The [http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/instruct/guides/primarysources.html University of California, Berkeley library] offers this definition: "Primary sources enable the researcher to get as close as possible to what actually happened during an historical event or time period. Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied, or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied (as in the case of memoirs) and they reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer."</ref>
*The [http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/instruct/guides/primarysources.html University of California, Berkeley library] offers this definition: "Primary sources enable the researcher to get as close as possible to what actually happened during an historical event or time period. Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied, or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied (as in the case of memoirs) and they reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer."</ref>


*'''Secondary sources''' are secondhand accounts, one step removed from an event.<ref>[http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/instruct/guides/primarysources.html University of California, Berkeley library] defines "secondary source" as "a work that interprets or analyzes an historical event or phenomenon. It is generally at least one step removed from the event."</ref> They draw on primary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims.<ref>[http://lib1.bmcc.cuny.edu/help/sources.html Borough of Manhattan Commmunity College, A. Philip Randolph Memorial Library, "Research Help:Primary vs. Secondary Sources"] notes that a secondary source "analyzes and interprets primary sources", is a "second-hand account of an historical event" or "interprets creative work". It also states that a secondary source "analyzes and interprets research results" or "analyzes and interprets scientific discoveries".</ref><ref>[http://www.nationalhistoryday.org/SecondarySources.htm The National History Day website] states simply that: "Secondary sources are works of synthesis and interpretation based upon primary sources and the work of other authors."</ref> Where interpretive claims, analysis, or synthetic claims about primary sources are included in Wikipedia articles, secondary sources should be used, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Secondary sources on Wikipedia should have a reputation for fair and objective reporting, as they can be biased by the views of their author(s) and/or publisher.<ref>Hacker, Diana. (1999). ''A Writer's Reference''. Fourth Ed. p. 70. ISBN 0312260377</ref> Caution should be taken to preserve the [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] , avoid [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] and ensure the information cited is used in context.
*'''Secondary sources''' are secondhand accounts, one step removed from an event.<ref>[http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/instruct/guides/primarysources.html University of California, Berkeley library] defines "secondary source" as "a work that interprets or analyzes an historical event or phenomenon. It is generally at least one step removed from the event."</ref> They draw on primary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims.<ref>[http://lib1.bmcc.cuny.edu/help/sources.html Borough of Manhattan Commmunity College, A. Philip Randolph Memorial Library, "Research Help:Primary vs. Secondary Sources"] notes that a secondary source "analyzes and interprets primary sources", is a "second-hand account of an historical event" or "interprets creative work". It also states that a secondary source "analyzes and interprets research results" or "analyzes and interprets scientific discoveries".</ref><ref>[http://www.nationalhistoryday.org/SecondarySources.htm The National History Day website] states simply that: "Secondary sources are works of synthesis and interpretation based upon primary sources and the work of other authors."</ref> Where interpretive claims, analysis, or synthetic claims about primary sources are included in Wikipedia articles, secondary sources should be used, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.


*'''Tertiary sources''' are publications such as encyclopedias or other [[Compendium|compendia]] that sum up many secondary and primary sources. Many introductory textbooks may also be considered tertiary to the extent they sum up widely accepted results of large amounts of primary and secondary sources. Tertiary sources can be useful in providing context and avoiding original research in topics where there exist very large amounts of primary and/or secondary sources.
*'''Tertiary sources''' are publications such as encyclopedias or other [[Compendium|compendia]] that sum up many secondary and primary sources. Many introductory textbooks may also be considered tertiary to the extent they sum up widely accepted results of large amounts of primary and secondary sources. Tertiary sources can be useful in providing context and avoiding original research in topics where there exist very large amounts of primary and/or secondary sources.

Revision as of 04:45, 16 December 2007

Policies and guidelines (list)
Principles
Content policies
Conduct policies
Other policy categories
Directories

Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

  • Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing, publicizing or promoting original research. No original research, or NOR, is a corollary to two other policies:
  • Our original major content policy, neutral point of view (NPOV) encourages editors to add undisputed facts, including unbiased accounts of various people's views. It has traditionally forbidden editors from inserting their own views into articles, and demands that Wikipedia balance the relative prominence of differing viewpoints based on their prominence in the relevant field.
  • Our verifiability policy (V) demands that information and notable views presented in articles be drawn from appropriate, published reliable sources.
  • Compliance with our Verifiability policy and our cite sources guideline is the best way to ensure that you do not violate our NOR policy. In short, the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article; the only way to demonstrate that you are not inserting your own POV is to represent those sources and the views they reflect accurately.
  • NPOV, V, and NOR are Wikipedia's three principal content policies. Because they complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three.

Sources

Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. However, care should be taken to not "go beyond" what is expressed in the sources, nor use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using the information out of context. In short, stick to the sources.

Reliable sources

Main pages: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources

Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. "Original research" is a claim for which no reliable source can be found. Producing a reliable published source that advances the same claim taken in context is the only way to disprove an assertion that a claim constitutes original research. If there is a source, but the source or claim is disputed, that is not original research but rather of a question of reliable sourcing or undue weight. However, using information from references out-of-context or to forward claims not directly supported by the sources is original research.

In general, the most reliable sources are books, journals and other periodicals published by university presses or reputable publishing houses. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing 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 Wikipedia:Verifiability for exceptions.

Using sources

Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. Article statements generally should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, nor on passing comments. Passages open to interpretation should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source's author(s). Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references are cited in context and on topic.

Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

Shortcut

Sources may be divided into three basic categories of how they relate to the subject being written about.[1] For the purposes of Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, primary, secondary and tertiary sources are broadly defined as follows:

  • Primary sources are very close to the origin of a particular topic. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is an example of a primary source. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that an article or particular part of an article relies on a primary source, that part of the article should:
  • only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
  • make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.
Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field research, experiments or observations, published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research; original philosophical works, religious scripture, administrative documents, and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.[2]
  • Secondary sources are secondhand accounts, one step removed from an event.[3] They draw on primary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims.[4][5] Where interpretive claims, analysis, or synthetic claims about primary sources are included in Wikipedia articles, secondary sources should be used, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
  • Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that sum up many secondary and primary sources. Many introductory textbooks may also be considered tertiary to the extent they sum up widely accepted results of large amounts of primary and secondary sources. Tertiary sources can be useful in providing context and avoiding original research in topics where there exist very large amounts of primary and/or secondary sources.

All sources should be used in a way that does not give rise to new analyses, syntheses or original conclusions that are not verifiable. Where interpretive claims, analysis, or synthetic claims are included in Wikipedia articles, use appropriate sources rather than original analysis by Wikipedia editors.

Appropriate sourcing is a complicated issue, and these are general rules. The decision as to whether primary or secondary sources are more suitable on a specific occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on individual article talk pages.

Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position

Shortcut

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 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.[6] "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 Wikipedia 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 practice to use other people's books to find new references.

That much is fine. Now comes the unpublished synthesis of published material. The following material was added to that same Wikipedia article just after the above two sentences:

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 Wikipedia by a contributor.

Citing oneself

Shortcut

This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, 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, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest.

Original images

Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams 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 free encyclopedia, there are relatively few publicly available images we can take and use. Wikipedia 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. If the manipulation materially affects the encyclopedic value of the image, they should be posted to Wikipedia: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.

Origins of this policy

See Wikipedia:No original research/history

Verifiability (V)

Main page: Wikipedia:Verifiability

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This policy and the verifiability policy reinforce each other by requiring that only assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia.

Neutral point of view (NPOV)

Main page: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

The prohibition against original research limits the possibility that editors may present their own points of view in articles. By reinforcing the importance of including verifiable research produced by others, this policy promotes the inclusion of multiple points of view. 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 provide context for this point of view, by 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, Wikipedia's co-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 Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research." [7]

Other options

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Various professional fields treat the distinction between primary and secondary sources in differing fashions. Some fields and references also further distinguish between secondary and tertiary sources. Primary, secondary and tertiary sources are broadly defined here for the purposes of Wikipedia.
  2. ^ Definitions of primary sources:
    • The University of Nevada, Reno Libraries define primary sources as providing "an inside view of a particular event." They offer as examples: original documents, such as autobiographies, diaries, e-mail, interviews, letters, minutes, news film footage, official records, photographs, raw research data, and speeches; creative works, such as art, drama, films, music, novels, poetry; and relics or artifacts, such as buildings, clothing, DNA, furniture, jewelry, pottery.
    • The University of California, Berkeley library offers this definition: "Primary sources enable the researcher to get as close as possible to what actually happened during an historical event or time period. Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied, or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied (as in the case of memoirs) and they reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer."
  3. ^ University of California, Berkeley library defines "secondary source" as "a work that interprets or analyzes an historical event or phenomenon. It is generally at least one step removed from the event."
  4. ^ Borough of Manhattan Commmunity College, A. Philip Randolph Memorial Library, "Research Help:Primary vs. Secondary Sources" notes that a secondary source "analyzes and interprets primary sources", is a "second-hand account of an historical event" or "interprets creative work". It also states that a secondary source "analyzes and interprets research results" or "analyzes and interprets scientific discoveries".
  5. ^ The National History Day website states simply that: "Secondary sources are works of synthesis and interpretation based upon primary sources and the work of other authors."
  6. ^ Mr. Wales disapproves of synthesized historical theories and states: "Some who completely understand why Wikipedia 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)
  7. ^ Wales, Jimmy. "WikiEN-l roy_q_royce@hotmail.com: --A Request RE a WIKIArticle--", September 29, 2003.

Further reading

Listen to this page
(2 parts, 20 minutes)
  2. Part 2
Spoken Wikipedia icon
These audio files were created from a revision of this page dated
Error: no date provided
, and do not reflect subsequent edits.
(Audio help · More spoken articles)
Wikiversity has learning resources about Wikiversity:Publishing original research
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research&oldid=178229843"