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 of a specific subject under consideration).

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.

For theories:

1. State the valid concepts,
2. State the known and popular ideas and identify general "consensus", and
3. Individual ideas (eg. stuff made up) should either goto 'votes for deletion' [because "failing the test of confirmability" (not for being false)] or be copyedited out.

The following are NOT grounds for exclusion:

1. Listing claims which have little or no supporting evidence;
2. Listing claims which contradict established conditions, explainations, or soulutions;
3. Including research that fails to provide an 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.

Other encyclopedias

Places that do allow original research include the Internet-Encyclopedia and Everything 2.