Wikipedia:No original research: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
From [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-September/006693.html a mailing list post] by [[Jimbo Wales]]: |
From [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-September/006693.html a mailing list post] by [[Jimbo Wales]]: |
||
:If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
Further reading: |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
* [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-July/005267.html] |
|||
* [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-September/006696.html] |
|||
== Other encyclopedias == |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
Places that ''do'' allow original research include the [[Internet-Encyclopedia]] and [[Everything 2]]. |
|||
Revision as of 17:01, 21 December 2003
Wikipedia is not the place for original research such as "new" scientific theories.
From a mailing list post by Jimbo Wales:
- 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 scientific minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and the article should certainly address the controversy without taking sides.
- 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 ancilliary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.
Further reading:
Other encyclopedias
Places that do allow original research include the Internet-Encyclopedia and Everything 2.