Wikipedia:No original research

Wikipedia is not the place for original research such as "new" theories.

Wikipedia is not a primary source. Specific factual content is not the question. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 research if it proposes ideas, that is:

• It introduces a theory or method of solution, or
• It introduces original ideas, or
• It defines terms, or
• It purports to refute an other 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 Wikipedia, 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 [ed. An article should address the controversy without taking sides].
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancilliary article), regardless if it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not [ed. A polite rational discussion in the Talk page or "votes for deletion" is probably the way to settle this].

How to deal with wikipedia 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
3. 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 NOT grounds for exclusion:

1. Listing claims which have little or no supporting evidence;
2. Listing claims which contradict established conditions, explanations, or solutions;
3. Including research that fails to provide the possibility of reproducible results; or
4. Citing viewpoints that violate Occam's Razor (the principle of choosing the simplest explanation when multiple viable explanations are possible).

Further reading

• 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.

Other encyclopedias

Places that do allow original research include Wikinfo and Everything 2.