320:"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, Knowledge'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 Knowledge 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).
249:
writing the article, you meet
Stephen Hawking. Over a beer, he tells you: "Actually, I think Theory X is a load of rubbish." Even though you've been told by the author himself that Theory X is, in his view, a "load of rubbish," you cannot include the fact that he told you this in your Knowledge entry. Why not? The answer is that it is not verifiable in a way that would satisfy the Knowledge readership. The readers don't know who you are. You can't include your telephone number so that every reader in the world can call you directly for confirmation. And even if they did, why should they believe you?
258:
similar to peer review before being published. It would be checked by the reporter; then by an editor; then by the managing editor, depending on the set-up of the newspaper; possibly by the lawyers; and then possibly by the editor-in-chief. Hawking would have the chance to respond, as would his publisher and perhaps his lawyer, and other members of the academic community would be approached for their responses too. These checks and balances exist to ensure that only accurate and fair stories appear in the newspaper. It is this process that
Knowledge is not in a position to provide.
290:
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 would you (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
Knowledge calls "reputable".
21:
93:
made available to people who do not rely on
Knowledge. 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-Knowledge web-page). It is very important to
289:
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
92:
In most cases, however, Knowledge 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
Knowledge articles, it is essential that any primary source material used in an article has been published or otherwise
73:
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.
252:
Suppose you were firmly convinced that this new information should be published in
Knowledge, and that to fail to do so would be intellectually dishonest. How would you go about getting it into Knowledge? For the information to be acceptable to Knowledge, you would have to contact a reputable news
248:
A good way to look at this distinction is with the following example. Suppose you are writing a
Knowledge entry on physicist Stephen Hawking's Theory X. Theory X has been published in peer-reviewed journals and is therefore an appropriate subject for a Knowledge article. However, in the course of
257:
of London, for the sake of discussion — and explain to them what
Stephen Hawking told you. You might have a tape recording of the conversation that you could let them hear; or perhaps they would interview you. Whatever they chose to do with the information, the story would go through a process
281:
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 group or religious group would often not be regarded as
314:
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
121:
Knowledge is an encyclopedia. It is not journalism. Knowledge articles are not news reports, personal journals or weblogs. Knowledge is not here to provide writers with a platform for their ideas. A Knowledge article generalizes and explains existing published research on a specific subject.
53:
The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas 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
189:"No original research" does not mean that experts on a specific topic cannot contribute to Knowledge. Indeed, Knowledge welcomes experts and academics. However, such experts do not occupy a privileged position within Knowledge. They should refer to themselves and their publications in the
104:
In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. In such cases, articles should provide an account of the controversy and of the different authorities or sources. Such an account also helps ensure the article’s
306:"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
244:
One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims and opinions that have been published by a reputable publisher. The threshold for inclusion in
Knowledge entries is verifiability, not truth.
265:
published the story, you could then include the information in your
Knowledge entry. However, if you're unable to find anyone to publish it, or if you can only secure publication in a news outlet that does not have a good reputation, then the material has no place in Knowledge
117:
Statements of fact or ideas referred to in Knowledge articles should already have appeared in a reputable or credible publication, which is used by the editor as a reference. If your edit is challenged, you must provide a reference or your edit will be deleted.
148:
If you have a great idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Knowledge, the best approach is to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately
277:
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 publiciations.
293:
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.
282:"reputable". For example, Knowledge 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
81:
In some cases, where Knowledge articles make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, Knowledge articles may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include
286:, then Knowledge could refer to it (and probably also to its claimed sources). The political magazine could, however, be used as a source of information about the party itself.
310:
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
231:
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Knowledge (except perhaps in some ancillary article)
161:
Since Knowledge strives to be a source that merely summarizes well-established, published materials, it is especially important to
221:
If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
106:
47:
181:
for more details and rationales, as well as an example of citation style (although formatting is of secondary importance).
28:
98:
178:
94:
78:
present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data.
66:
336:
210:
233:
regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
62:
330:
138:
86:
359:
190:
224:
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name
214:
142:
55:
36:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
82:
122:
Knowledge does not publish unattributed, original statements or theories.
355:
145:-level science if its authors tried to publish it first on Knowledge.
58:, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".
342:
315:
principle will hold true for history" (WikiEN-l, December 3, 2004).
193:
and write from a neutral point of view (NPOV). They must also cite
201:
as a source of information (which would be impossible to verify).
150:
173:. Even if you are writing from your own knowledge, you should
15:
302:
Knowledge's founder, Jimbo Wales, has put it like this:
345:, a proposal for a wiki for original research.
8:
175:actively search for authoritative references
61:Original research is research that produces
354:Two options to place original research are
125:The fact that we exclude something does
273:What counts as a reputable publication?
101:any of the claims made in the article.
34:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7:
339:: Mailing list post by Jimbo Wales.
333:: Mailing list post by Jimbo Wales.
268:even though you know it to be true.
298:The opinion of Knowledge's founder
137:. We would have to turn away even
129:necessarily mean that material is
50:the place for original research.
14:
205:Majority and minority viewpoints
19:
165:that the reader can consult to
1:
350:Options for original research
135:not the proper venue for it
376:
337:A Request RE a WIKIArticle
240:Verifiability, not truth
235:This is explained below.
197:, and may not use their
297:
179:Knowledge:Cite sources
141:-level journalism and
133:— Knowledge is simply
97:, so that readers can
95:Knowledge:Cite sources
199:unpublished knowledge
171:find more information
107:neutral point of view
32:of past discussions.
54:Knowledge's founder
211:a mailing list post
284:The New York Times
169:an article and to
331:Crackpot articles
76:Secondary sources
67:secondary sources
44:
43:
38:current main page
367:
48:Knowledge is not
23:
22:
16:
375:
374:
370:
369:
368:
366:
365:
364:
352:
327:
325:Further reading
300:
275:
253:organization —
242:
207:
187:
177:to cite. See
159:
115:
71:Primary sources
63:primary sources
20:
12:
11:
5:
373:
371:
351:
348:
347:
346:
340:
334:
326:
323:
322:
321:
317:
316:
299:
296:
274:
271:
241:
238:
237:
236:
229:
222:
206:
203:
186:
183:
158:
155:
114:
111:
87:current events
46:
42:
41:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
372:
363:
361:
357:
349:
344:
341:
338:
335:
332:
329:
328:
324:
319:
318:
313:
309:
305:
304:
303:
295:
291:
287:
285:
279:
272:
270:
269:
264:
259:
256:
250:
246:
239:
234:
230:
227:
223:
220:
219:
218:
216:
212:
204:
202:
200:
196:
192:
185:Self citation
184:
182:
180:
176:
172:
168:
164:
156:
154:
152:
146:
144:
140:
136:
132:
128:
123:
119:
112:
110:
108:
102:
100:
96:
90:
88:
84:
79:
77:
72:
68:
64:
59:
57:
51:
49:
39:
35:
31:
30:
25:
18:
17:
360:Everything 2
353:
343:Wikiresearch
311:
307:
301:
292:
288:
283:
280:
276:
267:
262:
260:
254:
251:
247:
243:
232:
225:
208:
198:
195:publications
194:
191:third person
188:
174:
170:
166:
163:cite sources
162:
160:
157:Cite sources
151:non-partisan
147:
134:
130:
126:
124:
120:
116:
103:
91:
80:
75:
70:
60:
52:
45:
37:
33:
27:
215:Jimbo Wales
56:Jimbo Wales
26:This is an
228:adherents;
263:The Times
255:The Times
226:prominent
83:apple pie
153:manner.
139:Pulitzer
113:Overview
356:Wikinfo
29:archive
167:verify
99:verify
209:From
143:Nobel
89:).
358:and
308:true
312:can
261:If
213:by
131:bad
127:not
85:or
65:or
362:.
217::
109:.
69:.
40:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.