User:Vassyana/insanity/No original research 002


 * Changes made in sandbox for initial pare down

Wikipedia does not publish original research (OR) or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

No original research (NOR) is one of three content policies. The others are Neutral point of view (NPOV) and Verifiability (V). Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. Editors should consider them in the context of each other.

If you have questions about particular examples of OR, or you need help because someone has accused you of posting OR, please see the No original research noticeboard (WP:NORN).

Reliable sources
Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. "Original research" is material for which no reliable source can be found. The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that contains that material.

Using sources
Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. Article statements generally should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, nor on passing comments. Passages open to interpretation should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source's author(s). Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references be cited in context and on topic.

Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources
For the purposes of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, primary, secondary, and tertiary sources are defined as follows:


 * Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is an example of a primary source. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any analysis of primary source material requires a reliable secondary or tertiary source. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:
 * only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, and
 * make no analytic, interpretive, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.


 * Unsourced material obtained from a Wikipedian's personal experience, such as an unpublished eyewitness account, should not be added to articles. It would violate both this policy and Verifiability, and would cause Wikipedia (a tertiary source) to become a primary source for that material.


 * Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event. Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims. Wikipedia articles should generally cite reliable secondary sources.


 * Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that sum up secondary and primary sources. For example, Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source. Many introductory textbooks may also be considered tertiary source, for example. Tertiary sources may be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources.

Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages.

Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position
Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page. Individual reliable facts and claims are sometime inappropriately put together in a way that constitutes original research. This "synthesis" occurs when conclusions are supported by citing sources to advance a position not explicitly supported by the sources and/or when the sources are not directly related to the subject. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis &mdash; it is good editing.

Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. Facts and conclusions not likely to be challenged are not prohibited by this policy.

Citing oneself
This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with NPOV.

Original images
Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to upload photographs or other images they have made under the GFDL, or another free license, to illustrate articles. Images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments. There is the possibility of editors using photo manipulation to distort the facts or position being illustrated by the photo. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. If an image is advancing an unpublished position, it is still impermissible original research. For example, a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader is not allowed.

Verifiability (V)
This policy and the verifiability policy reinforce each other by requiring that only assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia.

Neutral point of view (NPOV)
Original research can violate NPOV by presenting positions not present in the body of reliable sources, as well as by minimizing or advancing a position out of proportion with the sources. Editors should not rely on their own conclusions about the importance of a particular position, which would be original research, but rather defer to reputable references. Emphasizing dependence on reliable references promotes the inclusion of multiple points of view and adherence to NPOV.