User:Vassyana/NOR

NOR history
The history of this page is not quite as some editors would present it. At the end of August 2005, the policy did indeed read (as some like to emphasize): Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. 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.

However, it also said, noting article reliance on primary sources was an exception: 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), but these are exceptions.

It did say that articles should include both primary and secondary sources, but the reliance on secondary sources was clear: 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, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data has been published by a reputable publication that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library.

Six months later, it had slowly moved towards greater emphasis on secondary sources (emphasis added to illustrate change): In most cases, Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable secondary sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate. 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, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library. It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can find your source and can satisfy themselves that Wikipedia has used the source correctly.

Three months later, that change persisted. The same changes persisted and a month later some additions are apparent, which was separated into the "what is excluded" section checking a month later. That change persisted still at the beginning of August 2006. Due to the widespread abuse of primary sources, there was an extensive discussion regarding primary vs. secondary sources (Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Primary_v._secondary_sources_discussion) and by mid-September consensus was working itself out. By the beginning of November, the policy reflected the same basic format and thrust that version reflects until there was a drastic (and reverted) alteration to the policy without a proposal or consensus. The issue was even revisited recently and the language tightened up (Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research).

Current consensus

 * Verifiability


 * Neutral point of view


 * Reliable sources