వికీపీడియా:మౌలిక పరిశోధనలు నిషిద్ధం
ఈ వ్యాసాన్ని పూర్తిగా అనువాదకులకు వనరులు)తరువాత ఈ మూసను తీసివేయండి. అనువాదం చేయాల్సిన వ్యాస భాగం ఒకవేళ ప్రధాన పేరుబరిలో వున్నట్లయితే పాఠ్యం సవరించు నొక్కినప్పుడు కనబడవచ్చు. అనువాదం పూర్తయినంతవరకు ఎర్రలింకులు లేకుండా చూడాలంటే ప్రస్తుత ఆంగ్ల కూర్పుని, భాషల లింకుల ద్వారా చూడండి(
మౌలిక పరిశోధనలు నిషిద్ధం అనేది వికీపీడియా లోని వ్యాస విషయాన్ని నిర్దేశించే మూడు నిర్దేశకాల్లో ఒకటి. మిగతావి తటస్థ దృక్కోణం, నిర్ధారత్వం.
వికీపీడియాలో మౌలిక పరిశోధనా వ్యాసాలకు చోటు లేదు. మీరు రాసేది పరిశోధనా వ్యాసం కాదు అని నిర్ధారించే ఏకైక విధానం.. మీరు రాసిన విషయానికి సంబంధించిన విశ్వసనీయ మూలం/వనరు లను ఉదహరించడమే!
గతంలో ఏ విశ్వసనీయ వనరులోనూ ప్రచురించబడని వ్యాసాన్ని వికీపీడియాలో మౌలిక పరిశోధనా వ్యాసం అంటారు. ఇంతకు ముందు ప్రచురితం కాని వాదనలు, చర్చలు, భావనలు, డేటా, ఆలోచనలు, ప్రకటనలు, సిద్ధాంతాలు, ఇప్పటికే ప్రచురితమైన విషయాలపై సాగిన కొత్త విషయాలతో కూడిన పరిశోధనాత్మక విశ్లేషణ ఈ కోవలోకి వస్తాయి.
|ఒక్క మాటలో ఈ పేజీ గురించి:|
Wikipedia does not publish original research 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 This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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.
Wikipedia:No original research (NOR) is one of three content policies. The others are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) and Wikipedia:Verifiability (V). Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. Because they complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three.
Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Take care, however, not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the 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. Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source you are also engaged in original research; see below.
In general the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable, but see this section of Verifiability for exceptions.
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.
ప్రాథమిక, ద్వితీయ, తృతీయ మూలాలుసవరించు
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. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. 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, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
- make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.
- Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field research, experiments or observations, published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research; autobiographies, original philosophical works, religious scripture, administrative documents, and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.
- 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 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 rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
- 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 to the extent that they sum up multiple primary and secondary sources. Tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources. Some tertiary sources may be more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. WP:Verifiability#Reliable sources describes some criteria for assessing reliability of sources.
Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary or secondary 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 positionసవరించు
Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. 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, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly.
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. This would be synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, which constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.
Here is an example from a Wikipedia article, with the names changed. The article was about Jones:
Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, and says it's acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.
That much is fine. Now comes the unpublished synthesis of published material. The following material was added to that same Wikipedia article just after the above two sentences:
If Jones's claim that he consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Chicago Manual of Style does not call violating this rule "plagiarism". Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.
This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Chicago Manual of Style and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor.
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 our NPOV policy. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest.
Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Also, because of copyright law in a number of countries, and its relationship to the work of building a free encyclopedia, there are relatively few publicly available images we can take and use. Wikipedia editors' pictures fill a needed role.
A disadvantage of allowing original photographs to be uploaded 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 the manipulation materially affects the encyclopedic value of the image, they should be posted to Wikipedia:Images for deletion. Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. 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 viewసవరించు
The prohibition against original research limits the possibility that editors may present their own points of view in articles. By reinforcing the importance of including verifiable research produced by others, this policy promotes the inclusion of multiple points of view. Consequently, this policy reinforces our neutrality policy. In many cases, there are multiple established views of any given topic. In such cases, no single position, no matter how well researched, is authoritative. It is not the responsibility of any one editor to research all points of view. But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority.
The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research. Jimbo Wales has said of this:
- If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
- If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
- If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.
- Various professional fields treat the distinction between primary and secondary sources in differing fashions. Some fields and references also further distinguish between secondary and tertiary sources. Primary, secondary and tertiary sources are broadly defined here for the purposes of Wikipedia.
- Definitions of primary sources:
- The University of Nevada, Reno Libraries define primary sources as providing "an inside view of a particular event". They offer as examples: original documents, such as autobiographies, diaries, e-mail, interviews, letters, minutes, news film footage, official records, photographs, raw research data, and speeches; creative works, such as art, drama, films, music, novels, poetry; and relics or artifacts, such as buildings, clothing, DNA, furniture, jewelry, pottery.
- The University of California, Berkeley library offers this definition: "Primary sources enable the researcher to get as close as possible to what actually happened during an historical event or time period. Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied, or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied (as in the case of memoirs) and they reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer."
- University of California, Berkeley library defines "secondary source" as "a work that interprets or analyzes an historical event or phenomenon. It is generally at least one step removed from the event".
- Borough of Manhattan Community College, A. Philip Randolph Memorial Library, "Research Help:Primary vs. Secondary Sources" notes that a secondary source "analyzes and interprets primary sources", is a "second-hand account of an historical event" or "interprets creative work". It also states that a secondary source "analyzes and interprets research results" or "analyzes and interprets scientific discoveries".
- The National History Day website states simply that: "Secondary sources are works of synthesis and interpretation based upon primary sources and the work of other authors."
- Mr. Wales disapproves of synthesized historical theories and states: "Some who completely understand why Wikipedia 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." (Wales, Jimmy. "Original research", December 6, 2004)
- Wales, Jimmy. "WikiEN-l email@example.com: --A Request RE a WIKIArticle--", September 29, 2003.
|Wikiversity has learning materials about Wikiversity:Publishing original research|
- Wales, Jimmy. Crackpot articles, mailing list, July 12, 2003.
- Wales, Jimmy. "NPOV and 'new physics'", mailing list, September 26, 2003.
- Wales, Jimmy. "NPOV and 'new physics'", mailing list, September 26, 2003 (followup to above)
- Wales, Jimmy. "Original research", mailing list, December 3, 2004
- Wales, Jimmy. "Original research", mailing list, December 6, 2004