Wikipedia:These are not original research
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
While this essay is not a policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement Wikipedia:Original research. Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page. |
This is a description of the nature of a select few contributions that have been made to Wikipedia which some might consider falls under the formulation of original research — and although they involve some degree of analysis, are believed to be not covered by this principle.
Not all analysis is necessarily original research, and some forms can safely and obviously be excluded from this restriction. Furthermore, in some of the cases below it is not believed that they directly require a citation — as long as the information that they analyze is properly sourced. Additionally, verification tells us that uncontroversial and commonly accepted derivations or facts do not require citation.
This essay is offered as a contribution to the ongoing discussion — and as an attempt to help avoid Wikilawyering. For if we have a consensus on what this restriction is meant to cover, as well as what it was not meant to cover, then we do not need worry about quibbles over the precise wording.[1]
Contents |
[edit] Obvious deductions
- Any simple mathematical calculation that reasonably educated readers can be expected to quickly and easily reproduce. For example, if given the population and the size of a specific area, then the population density of that area may be included. More complex calculations (for instance, those involving statistics, advanced algebra, or complex calculus) should not be included, because they require skills that common educated readers do not possess, or involve a large number of steps that may not be obvious, making it difficult to detect errors.
- Simple logical deductions. For example, if A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C. This is a simple syllogism. Included are all of the other simple deductions. More complex logical deductions should not be used unless cited to a reliable source. The concerns are similar to the issues with complex mathematics.
[edit] Compiling facts and information
- Compiling related facts and information from independent sources is part of writing an encyclopedia. For example, multiple secondary sources are usually required before the notability of a subject is established. Those sources must then be combined to produce a cohesive, comprehensive, and coherent article. Neutral point of view requires presenting all significant viewpoints on an issue, and may include collecting opinions from multiple, possibly biased and/or conflicting, sources. Organizing published facts and opinions — without introducing your opinion or fabricating new facts, or presenting an unpublished conclusion — is not original research.
- Comparing and contrasting conflicting facts and opinion is not original research, as long as any characterization of the conflict is sourced to reliable sources. If reliable references cannot be found to explain the apparent discrepancy, editors should resist the temptation to add their own explanation. Present the material within the context contained in reliable sources, but avoid presenting the information in a way that "begs the question". An unpublished synthesis or analysis should not be presented for the readers' "benefit". Let the reader draw their own conclusions after seeing related facts in juxtaposition.
- Identifying synonymous terms, and collecting related information under a common heading is also part of writing an encyclopedia. Reliable sources do not always use consistent terminology, and it is sometimes necessary to determine when two sources are calling the same thing by different names. This does not require a third source to state this explicitly, as long as the conclusion is obvious from the context of the sources. Articles should follow the naming conventions in selecting the heading under which the combined material is presented.
[edit] Translation and contextualizing
Sources are written in a given language and context, and may need to be translated into a specific dialect of English, or placed in an encyclopedic context. Caution is needed to ensure that the original meaning is preserved in any transformation.
- Wikipedia articles are written in a consistent dialect of the English language. It may be necessary to change spelling, use synonyms, or rephrase text written in different dialects to conform to the chosen dialect. This is not original research as long as the original meaning is preserved.
- Although the English language version of a source should be used when it is published in multiple languages, foreign language sources are also welcome, and even encouraged to reduce systemic bias. In this case, a previously published translation is preferred if one is available. Text from another language that has no translation into English available may be newly translated. Any original translations should be faithful, to the point of literalness; if interpretation is called for, it should be explicitly in parenthetical notes.1 Fluency in a foreign language is an exception to the "without specialist knowledge" provision.
- Sources may be written in a fictional, nationalistic, religious or other narrow context. Material from these sources incorporated in Wikipedia must be placed in a broader, more encyclopedic context. Placing material in an encyclopedic context is different from taking things out of context. For example: material written in a fictional context needs to be described in an out of universe perspective; material written from a localized or nationalistic perspective must be presented in a perspective consistent with a world-wide viewpoint; religious dogma must be characterized as such, and not presented as accepted fact outside of that religion.2 This is not original research when good editorial judgment is used.
[edit] Typos and proofing errors
Many sources contain typographical and proofing errors, some more than others. Claiming tendentiously that such a mistake represents the author's intent is often dishonest. However, it is important to be exacting when using direct quotations.[2] The proper way to deal with them is:
- If at all possible, if the mistake is trivial (spelling, grammar) avoid the problem by paraphrasing the source. People who verify the citation will read it in context, and see that it is obviously an error in the printing.
- If the text must be quoted, either place the correction in brackets,3 or mark it with a [sic] to clearly indicate errors. The best choice between these two options should be determined in Wikipedia's Manual of Style.
[edit] Caveats about expert material
Experts are human, and can publish statements that are contradicted by known facts, or otherwise erroneous. The reasons for this contradiction vary: intentional bias, a failing of editorial oversight, or lack of context. Sometimes the statements of experts can become obsolete or inaccurate in light of the normal process of peer-review and advancement in their field.
Wikipedians are not mere copyists, bound to repeat simple statements absent context or without thought. The intent of the NPOV is presenting the dialogue that is apparent in the body of reliable references, not to mechanically include every possible opinion about the subject. We have a responsibility to present an accurate and factual overview of the topic addressed in the article. This may include indicating when a given authority may be wrong and presenting contradicting claims using proper weighting.
A solution is to accurately and honestly cite the authority, while also citing the conflicting fact(s); point to the problem, but do not attempt to solve it with your own arguments. Stating emphatically that the authority is wrong because of these facts, is original research; you are introducing a novel interpretation of the facts. This caveat may done by way of a footnote, or a short statement appropriately placed in the article. Following each statement with an elaborate response that disrupts the flow of the article should be avoided; if the authority needs to be qualified on several points, the reliability of that expert or particular work may be questionable. It may also be appropriate to create a separate section (or another article), for these qualifications — with the appropriate citations, of course. In that case, this is not presenting original research, but deepening Wikipedia's coverage of the discussion on this subject.
[edit] Notes
- Note 1: The credit for any new translation should be (tr:WP). The translation must, of course, be editable. Fair use caveats apply as they do for other quoted texts; note that while the original text may be public domain, translations of it may be copyrighted.
- Note 2: This does not apply to direct quotations, which should be quoted exactly. The lead-in or follow-up to the quote should provide appropriate context.
- Note 3: For example: If the original text reads "Smith decided it was a impossible task", rendering it as "Smith decided it was a[n] impossible task" or "Smith decided it was [an] impossible task". This clearly shows the reader the correction made from the original source.
[edit] References
- ^ Or from a historical maxim, attributed to Cato the Elder, "Hold to the matter, the words will follow." Alexander, Gavin; Sidney, Philip (2004). Sidney's 'The defence of Poesy' and selected Renaissance literary criticism. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, p. 406. ISBN 0-14-143938-6.
- ^ "It is impossible to overemphasize [emphasis added] the importance of meticulous accuracy in quoting from the works of others." (Chicago Manual of Style. 15th Edition. University of Chicago Press (2003). Pg 445. ISBN 9780226104034.)
