No Original ResearchEdit
No Original Research is a guiding principle that shapes how knowledge is presented in encyclopedic writing. It holds that every factual claim, analysis, and interpretation must be grounded in reliable sources and cannot be the product of the writer’s own speculation or unsubstantiated inference. In practical terms, this means editors summarize what credible sources say, rather than adding new ideas or drawing conclusions that no source explicitly supports. The idea rests on shared standards of accountability, accuracy, and trustworthiness that are familiar to readers of verifiability and reliable sources.
Though the policy is technical in tone, its implications touch everyday debates about what counts as legitimate knowledge. Proponents argue it protects readers from misleading or partisan reporting by insisting on sources that can be checked and re-checked. Critics, however, say the rule can be used to enforce conformity, suppress new or contentious perspectives, and privilege established institutions at the expense of alternative viewpoints. In practice, the balance is to allow fair summarization and context while prohibiting the introduction of conjecture as fact.
Historically, No Original Research developed out of a tradition of disciplined citation and scholarly skepticism. Before the digital era, scholars relied on books, peer-reviewed journals, and other vetted publications as the anchors of knowledge. With online encyclopedias and rapid information-sharing, the same impulse—preventing unverified claims from spreading—has become more formalized. Today, the standard is not simply that something must be true; it must be verifiably supported by credible sources that readers can consult. Editors routinely test claims against sources and highlight where interpretations are drawn from the material, rather than representing an author’s own theory as fact. See how this plays out in discussing public figures, events, and institutions, for example in a sentence like “the president after George W. Bush was Barack Obama.”
Foundations and scope
What counts as “no original research”: Statements must be supported by published sources. Paraphrase and summary of sources are acceptable; new theories or conclusions—interpretations not stated in the sources—are not. See verifiability and citable sources for more on how editors assess reliability.
What counts as a credible source: The standard is not prestige alone but the ability of a source to be checked, cross-verified, and examined for bias or error. Readers are encouraged to consult multiple sources to understand consensus and dissent. See reliable sources and source criticism.
Distinctions between facts and interpretation: Reporting a fact is different from offering an interpretation of what that fact means. The latter requires explicit sourcing and a clear attribution to a credible analysis. See neutral point of view and interpretation.
Historical development
From scholars to editors: The move from exclusive reliance on academic journals to a broader editorial framework reflects a desire to make knowledge accessible while retaining standards. The practice aligns with long-standing editorial norms that prioritize reproducibility and accountability, which readers expect in an encyclopedia.
The rise of digital encyclopedias: Online platforms extended the reach of verifiable knowledge but also intensified debates about what sources count and how to handle contested topics. Proponents argue that the digital era makes verifiability more essential than ever, while critics say it can privilege established voices over lived experience that appears only in non-traditional sources. See Wikipedia and open access for related developments.
The debate around originality and sources
The conservative case for No Original Research
- Reliability and public trust: By insisting on sources, the policy reduces the risk of publishing rumors or deceptive claims. This aligns with a broader preference for stability, predictability, and accountability in public discourse.
- Guarding against manipulation: In an era of rapid information flow, preventing original claims from being presented as fact helps counter propaganda, sensationalism, and cherry-picked evidence.
- Clarity of arguments: Readers benefit when claims can be traced to sources they can examine, rather than relying on the article’s author’s interpretation alone. See cited and fact-checking.
Critics’ concerns (from perspectives outside the mainstream consensus)
- Underrepresentation of nontraditional knowledge: Some voices, especially those outside established institutions, argue their lived experience and scholarship are treated as insufficiently credible. Critics contend this can silence important viewpoints.
- Stifling innovation: There is worry that the policy discourages new theories or contested ideas until they reach credentialed endorsement, slowing important debates.
- Gatekeeping and bias claims: Critics often allege that gatekeeping through sourcing mechanisms can reproduce existing power structures. The rebuttal from the policy’s defenders is that standards are not inherently biased, but rather aimed at transparency and accountability; improvements, they say, should expand credible sourcing rather than abandon standards.
Why the reform impulse from the other side is not a repudiation of standards
Why some critics describe “woke” criticisms as misplaced
- They claim that the No Original Research principle is about maintaining reliable, checkable information rather than policing opinions. Reformist critiques may argue for more inclusive sourcing, but the core function remains: to prevent unverified claims from masquerading as knowledge. Supporters respond that the policy does not ban diverse viewpoints; it requires that those viewpoints appear in credible, verifiable sources, and that new claims be recognized only when supported by evidence. See bias, cultural critique and policy.
In practice: implementation and examples
Editors assess claims against reliable, cited sources. When multiple reputable sources agree, the synthesis can reflect the consensus without crossing into original interpretation. See editorial process and consensus.
Handling controversial topics: Editors aim for a neutral point of view, presenting major positions and the weight they are given in the literature. Where sources disagree, the article should reflect those disagreements with clear attribution. See neutral point of view and controversy.
Examples of linked navigation in text:
- The president after George W. Bush was Barack Obama.
- The concept of verifiability is closely aligned with reliable sources and cited material.
Reforms and alternative approaches
Expanding the pool of credible sources: Advocates argue for broader recognition of credible non-traditional sources, including important reports and publications from relevant think tanks, industry bodies, and community organizations, provided they meet standard reliability checks. See source criticism and credibility.
Clearer rules for synthesis: Some propose explicit guidelines on when synthesis is permissible—so long as the synthesis accurately reflects what the cited sources say, without introducing new conclusions.
Improved transparency about sourcing decisions: Making the editorial process more explicit helps readers understand why a claim is supported and what is left unsettled. See transparency and editorial note.