Vikipedio:Ne faru originalan esploradon

Vikipedio ne publikigas originalan esploradon, verkojn aŭ originalajn ideojn. Tio inkluzivas nepublikitajn faktojn, argumentojn, pensojn kaj konceptojn; kaj ĉiujn ajn nepublikigitajn analizojn aŭ sintezojn de publikigita materialo, kiuj celas antaŭenenigi vidpunkton. Tio signifas, ke Vikipedio ne estas loko por publikigi viajn opiniojn, spertojn aŭ argumentojn. Citi fontojn kaj eviti originalan esploradon estas nepre ligitaj: por demonstri, ke vi ne prezentas originalan esploradon, vi devas citi fidindajn fontojn, kiuj donas informojn, kiuj rekte rilatas al la temo de la artikolo kaj kiuj rekte subtenas la informojn tiajn, kiajn ili estas prezentitaj.

Ne fari originalan esploradon estas unu el tri reguloj pri enhavo. La aliaj estas Neŭtrala vidpunkto kaj Kontrolebleco. Kune tiuj reguloj decidas kian kaj kiukvalitan materialon estas akceptebla en artikoloj. Ĉar ili iras kune, oni ne interpretu unu regulon dise de la aliaj, kaj vikipediistoj bone sciu ĉiujn tri.

Fontoj

Fidindaj fontoj

Vidu ankaŭ Kontrolebleco#Fontoj

Ĉiu enhavo, kiu estas aŭ povus esti kontestita, devas esti subtenata de fidinda fonto. "Originala esplorado" estas materialo, pri kiu ne troveblas fidinda fonto. La sola maniero, en kiu oni povas montri ke sia redakto ne estas originala esploro estas citi fidindan publikigitan fonton, kiu entenas la materialon. Tamen eĉ bonfontan materialon oni ne rajtas uzi ekster kunteksto aŭ por antaŭenigi vidpunkton, kiu ne estas rekte kaj eksplicite subtenata de la fonto.

Ĝenerale la plej fidindaj fontoj estas libroj kaj revuoj kontrolitaj de fakuloj kaj publikigitaj en universitataj presejoj, ekzemple universitataj lernolibroj, gazetoj kaj revuoj, libroj publikigitaj de respektataj eldonejoj, kaj popularaj novaĵ-gazetoj. Kiel ĝenerala regulo, ju pli da homoj okupiĝas pri kontroli faktojn, analizi jurajn demandojn kaj detaleme ekzameni la skribojn, des pli fidinda la publikaĵo. Memeldonita materialo, ĉu presite aŭ Interrete, ĝenerale ne estas rigardata kiel fidinda sed vidu Kontrolebleco#Memeldonitaj fontoj (Interretaj kaj presitaj) por esceptoj.

Uzi fontojn

La informoj en artikolo devas esti kontroleblaj en la cititaj fontindikoj. Asertoj en la artikoloj ĝenerale ne fidu je neklaraj aŭ nekonsekvencaj eltiraĵoj, nek je pretertemaj komentoj.

Eltiraĵojn, kiuj estas interpreteblaj en pli ol unu maniero, oni devas citi ekzakte aŭ entute eviti. Resumoj de ampleksaj diskutoj devas speguli la konkludojn de la font-aŭtoro. Fari konkludojn, kiuj ne estas evidentaj en la fonto, estas originala esplorado, sendepende de la fonttipo. Nepras, ke oni citu la fontojn en sia kunteksto kaj en la sama temo.

Unuarangaj, duarangaj kaj triarangaj fontoj

Rilate al la politiko de Vikipedio oni uzas la jenajn difinojn de unuaranga, duaranga kaj triaranga fonto:

• Unuarangaj fontoj estas fontoj tre proksimaj al la origino de specifa temo. Okula atestanto de trafika kolizio estas ekzemplo de unuaranga fonto. Oni rajtas uzi unuarangajn fontojn publikigitajn de fidinda fonto en Vikipedio, sed oni atentu ĉar estas facile misuzi ilin.

<-!-- 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; 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 is a complicated issue, and these are general rules. The decision as to 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 position

Ŝablono:Policy shortcut 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.

Citing oneself

Ŝablono:Policy shortcut 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.

Original images

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.

Related policies

Verifiability (V)

Pli detalaj informoj troveblas en artikolo Wikipedia:Verifiability.

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 view (NPOV)

Pli detalaj informoj troveblas en artikolo Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

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 NPOV 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.

-->