Wikipedia:独自の調査

Original research (OR) is a term used on in Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable reliable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position or, It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.

Wikipedia:No original research (NOR) is one of three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) and Wikipedia:Verifiability (V). The policies are complementary, jointly determining Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace articles. Since the policies complement each other, they should therefore not be interpreted in isolation from each other, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three.

The original motivation for the no original research NOR policy was to combat people with personal theories, such as cranks and trolls, who would attempt to use Wikipedia to draw attention to their ideas and to themselves.prevent people with personal theories attempting to use Wikipedia to draw attention to their ideas.^[1]However, original research is more than just no personal crank theories. It also excludes Original research includes editors' personal views, political opinions, their personal analysis or interpretation of published material, as well as and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material, where such a synthesis that appears to advance a position or opinion an editor may hold, or to support an argument or definition s/he may be trying to propose. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article. See this example for more details.

An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is, if it does any of the following:

• It introduces a theory or method of solution;
• It introduces original ideas;
• It defines new terms;
• It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
• It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
• It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
• It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean the material is bad ? Wikipedia is simply not the proper venue for it. We would have to turn away even Pulitzer-level journalism and Nobel-level science if its authors tried to publish it first on Wikipedia. If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner.

Like most Wikipedia policies, No original research applies to articles, not to talk pages or project pages, although it is regarded as poor taste to discuss personal theories on talk pages. (もともと== On talk pages and project pages ==として独立の節)

Applied to all editors, this policy helps secure our reputation in a number of important ways:

1. It is an obligation of Wikipedia to its readers that the information they read here be reliable and reputable, and so we rely only on credible or reputable published sources. See " What counts as a reputable publication?" and " Reliable sources" for discussions on how to judge whether a source is reliable.
3. Credible sources provide readers with resources they may consult to pursue their own research. After all, there are people who turn to encyclopedias as a first step in research, not as a last step.
4. Relying on citable sources helps clarify what points of view are represented in an article, and thus helps us comply with our NPOV policy.
5. Relying on credible sources also may encourage new contributors. For example, if someone knows of an important source that the article has not drawn on, he or she may feel more confident in adding important material to the article.

Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications.

For non-academic subjects, it is impossible to pin down a clear definition of "reputable". In general, most of us have a good intuition about the meaning of the word. A magazine or press release self-published by a very extreme political or religious group would often not be regarded as "reputable". For example, Wikipedia would not rely only on an article in the Socialist Workers' Party's newspaper, The Militant, to publish a statement claiming that President Bush is gay. However, if that same claim was in The New York Times, then Wikipedia could refer to the article (and to the sources quoted in the article). The political newspaper could, however, be used as a source of information about the party itself.

Ask yourself some questions when you are evaluating a publication. Is it openly partisan? Does it have a large or very small readership? Is it a vanity publisher? Is it run principally by a single person, or does it have a large, permanent staff? Does it seem to have any system of peer review, or do you get the feeling that it shoots from the hip? If you heard that the publication you are about to use as a source was considering publishing a very negative article about you, would you (a) be terrified because you suspect they are irresponsible and do not fact-check; or (b) feel somewhat reassured because the publication employs several layers of editing staff, fact-checkers, lawyers, an editor-in-chief, and a publisher, and will usually correct its mistakes? If it is (a), do not use it as a source. If it is (b), it is what Wikipedia calls "reputable".

When dispute arises regarding whether a publication is reputable, you can attempt to get more editors involved and work toward a consensus. There is no clear definition, but don't ignore your intuition.

詳細はWikipedia:Verifiabilityを参照

Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be accompanied by a reliable source. Material that counts as "original research" within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it. The only way to show that your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source who writes about the same claims or advances the same argument as you.

There is no firm definition of "reliable," although most of us have a good intuition about the meaning of the word. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by university presses; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals published by known publishing houses. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analysing 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 Wikipedia:Verifiability for exceptions.

• Primary sources present information or data, such as are documents or people very close to the situation being written about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source. The White House's summary of a president's speech is a primary source. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's 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 secondary source.
  Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; film, video or photographs (but see below); newspaper accounts which contain first-hand material, not merely analysis or commentary of other material; historical documents such as a diary, census results, video or transcript of surveillance, public hearing, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records written or recorded notes of laboratory assays and field experiments or observations; records of field observations ; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.
• Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data from other sources. draw on primary sources in order to make generalizations or original interpretive, analytical, synthetic, or explanatory claims. A journalist's analysis or commentary of a traffic accident based on eye-witness reports is a secondary source. A New York Times analysis and commentary on a president's speech is a secondary source. An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, constitute secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we present verifiable accounts of views and arguments of reliable scholars, and not interpretations of primary source material by Wikipedians.
• Tertiary sources are publications, such as encyclopedias, that sum up other secondary sources, and sometimes primary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source.

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions.

Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate. In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library. It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can find your source and can satisfy themselves that Wikipedia has used the source correctly.

In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy and of the different authorities or sources. Such an account also helps ensure the article’s neutral point of view.

Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.

詳細はWikipedia:検証可能性を参照

内容に疑問が提出された情報、もしくは疑問が提出されそうな情報には、その裏づけとなる信頼できる資料を示さなければなりません。本方針によって規定している「独自研究」にあてはまる情報とは、信頼できる裏づけ資料が一切見つからず、そのため投稿者の独自の考えなのではないかと考えられるような情報です。あなたの投稿内容が独自研究ではないと証明する唯一の方法は、あなたの主張と同じ主張をしている、あるいはあなたと同じ視点に立っている信頼の出来る公表済みの資料を示すことです

「信頼できる」という語に明確な定義はありませんが、大部分の人は直感的に判断できます。一般的に、最も信頼できる資料は、大学の出版部によって出版されている書籍や学術誌、主流の新聞、著名な出版社によって出版されている雑誌や学術誌です。常識からいって、事実の確認、法的問題の確認、文章の推敲などに多くの人が関わっていればいるほど、公表された内容は信頼できます。自己出版されたものは、紙媒体であれオンラインのものであれ、一般的には信頼できるとはみなされません。ただし例外についてWikipedia:検証可能性を参照してください。

Editors often 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 in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.^[3] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

An example from a Wikipedia article

Here is an example from a Wikipedia article, with the names changed. The article was about Jones (note that the article is about Jones, not about plagiarism in general):

Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism in Jones's Flower-Arranging: The Real Story by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, saying he is guilty only of good and says it's acceptable scholarly practice because he gave citations for the references he had learned about in the other book to use other people's books to find new references.

So far, so good. That much is fine. Now comes the new unpublished synthesis of published material:

If Jones's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style as well as Harvard's student writing manual, both of which requires citation of the source actually consulted. Neither manual calls violations ofThe Chicago Manual of Style does not call violating this rule on citing original sources "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 is the editor's own synthesis of published material serving to advance his definition and opinion of plagiarism and whether Jones commmitted it. The editor is citing good sources about best practice (Chicago Manual of Style and Harvard's student writing manual). In an article about plagiarism, some of the points he makes might be acceptable, so long as he provided links or citations to the sources.But in an article about Jones, the paragraph is putting forward the editor's opinion that, given a certain definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. Regardless of the fact that his opinion appears to be supported, other things being equal, by the Chicago Manual of Style, it remains the editor's opinion. For this paragraph to be acceptable in the article about Jones, the editor would have to find a reliable source who had commented on the Smith and Jones dispute and who had himself made the point that: "If Jones's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style..." and so on. That is, that precise argument, or combination of material, must have been published by a reliable source in the context of the topic the article is about.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.

"No original research" does not mean that experts on a specific topic cannot contribute to Wikipedia. On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes experts. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but also because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. They must cite reliable, third-party publications and may not use their unpublished knowledge, which would be impossible to verify. We hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of published sources to enrich our articles, bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia. 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, then s/he 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.

For theories:

1. State the key concepts;
2. State the known and popular ideas and identify general "consensus", making clear which is which, and bearing in mind that extreme-minority theories or views need not be included.

Unstable neologisms, and ideas stemming from one individual who is not an authority, or from a small group of such individuals, should either go to articles for deletion (because they "fail the test of confirmability", not because they are necessarily false), or should be copyedited out.

Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from the NOR this policy, in that Wikipedia editors have always been are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free licence, to illustrate articles. There are several reasons This is welcomed because images Pictures are generally used for illustration and do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Also, because of Due to 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 known 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 and. If they are not, noted as manipulated, they should be posted to Wikipedia:Images for deletion if the manipulation materially affects the encyclopedic value of the image. Even noted as having been manipulated, they should not be used to illustrate articles in the main namespace, although editors are free to make use of them on user pages.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. All uploaded pictures are subject to Wikipedia's other policies and guidelines, notably Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

詳細はWikipedia:Verifiabilityを参照The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. By insisting that only facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher may be published in Wikipedia, the no-original-research and verifiability policies reinforce one another.

See Wikipedia:Verifiability for more detailed information, and Wikipedia:Cite sources for examples of citation styles.

詳細はWikipedia:Neutral point of viewを参照

The prohibition against original research limits the possibility of an editor presenting his or her own point of view in an article. Moreover, By reinforcing the importance of including verifiable research produced by others, this policy promotes the inclusion of multiple points of view in an article. Consequently, this policy reinforces our neutral point of view 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 situate the research; that is, provide contextual information about the point of view, 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 because there may be a lack of sufficiently credible, third-party, published sources to back it up. From a mailing list post by Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's co-founder, 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 a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) 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) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. Wikipedia is not the place for original research."^[5]