Wikipedia:No original research
 |
Wikipedia 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.
The General Principle
Original research refers to theories, concepts, ideas and data 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 Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".
Original research is prohibited only when it was produced by editors of Wikipedia, and has not been published elsewhere. This prohibition does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate).
In summary, if the opinions or arguments you want to include in an article have not been published by a credible or reputable publication or the facts you state are not verifiable, you are engaged in original research.
Primary and Seconday sources
Original research can create 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- Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or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.
Within Wikipedia research that creates primary sources is not allowed, since by definition it will be original. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events).
In most cases, however, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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-Wikipedia web-page). It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can verify any claims made in the article.
Why do we exclude original research?
This policy is one of three content polices. The other two are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability. It is important for several reasons:
- It's an obligation of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:No_original_research#What_counts_as_a_reputable_publication? for a discussion on how to judge whether a source is reliable.
- 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.
- Relying on citable sources helps clarify what points of view are represented in an article, and thus helps us comply with our NPOV policy.
- 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.
Specific Applications
The Role of Expert Editors
"No original research" does not mean that experts on a specific topic cannot contribute to Wikipedia. On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes experts. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. Otherwise, we hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of other published sources to enrich our articles.
What is excluded from articles?
A Wikipedia entry (including any part of an article) counts as original research if it states unverifiable facts or it proposes original ideas. For example, ideas are considered original if the article:
- introduces a theory or method of solution
- defines a new term
- provide new definitions of old terms
- introduces an argument without citing a reputable source, which purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position
- introduces or uses neologisms.
All of the above may be acceptable content once they have 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 Wikipedia, 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 – Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.
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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.
On talk pages and project pages
Like most Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia; for instance Wikipedia:Statistics Department and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikidemia. These pages may contain original research; that is, research for which there is no reference other than projects in the Wikipedia namespace. Original research that does not have Wikipedia as its object should, however, be avoided on these pages too.
Related Policies
The prohibition against original research limits the possibility of an editor presenting his or her own point of view in an article. Moreover, by reenforcing the importance of including verifiable research produced by others, this policy promotes the inclusion of multiple points of view in an article. Consequently, this policy reenforces our neutral point of view 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. 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.
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 situate the research; that is, provide contextual information about the point of view, indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority.
Disputes Over How Established a View Is
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, Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for more detailed information.
The quality of an encyclopedia depends on its accuracy and reliability. Our NPOV policy acknowledges that people may disagree as to what "the truth" is. People can, however, agree that certain points of view exist. By relying on the research of others, and by presenting facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have been published by a reputable publisher, the no-original-research policy and our verifiability policy reinforce one another.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
See Wikipedia:Verifiability for more detailed information.
In order for people to be able to verify the research represented in a Wikipedia article, they must know where, outisde of Wikipedia, they can find the research. That is, they need to know the sources. Since this policy encourages editors to draw on previously published sources, it reenforces our cite sources policy.
See Wikipedia:Cite sources for more details and rationales, as well as an example of citation style (although formatting is of secondary importance).
Origin of this policy: the opinion of Wikipedia's founder
Wikipedia'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, Wikipedia'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 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" (WikiEN-l, December 6, 2004).
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
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.