Википедија:Без оригиналног истраживања

Из пројекта Википедија

Овај чланак или један његов део није преведен.
Ако сматрате да сте способни да га преведете, кликните на картицу уреди и преведите га, обавезно водећи рачуна о стилу и правопису.

Шаблон:Policy2

Шаблон:Policy in a nutshell Шаблон:Policylist

Википедија није мјесто за ориганална истраживања. Навођење извора и избјегавање оригиналних истраживања су уско везани: једини начин да докажете да оно што уносите у чланке није оригинално истраживање је да наведете провјерљиве изворе, гдје постоје информације које су ”директној вези” са предметом чланка и које помажу кредибилитету садржаја у чланку.

Без оригиналног истраживања је једно од три правила којима се води садржај на Википедији. Друга два правила су Википедија:Неутрална тачка гледишта и Википедија:Проверљивост. Сходно томе, та правила одређују врсту и квалитет материјала који је прихватљив у главном именском простору (читај: чланцима) Википедије. Пошто се сва три правила надопуњују, не треба их схватити изоловано једно од другог и уредници би се требали упознати са сваким од њих. О примјени ова три правила није могуће расправљати и ниједно од њих не може бити замјењено другим правилом, или упутством, па чак ни ако постоји консензус уредника који би омогућио тако нешто. Their policy pages may be edited only to better reflect practical explanation and application of these principles.

Садржај

[уреди] Дефиниција

Шаблон:Associations/Wikipedia Bad Things

Оригинално истраживање је појам који се користи на Википедији, а односи се на садржај који уредници убацују у чланке и који није раније објављен у неком повјерљивом извору. Чине га необјављене теорије, подаци, чињенице, концепти, аргументи и идеје; или неке нове интерпретације, анализе, или синтезе већ објављених података, чињеница, концепата, или аргумената чији је циљ измјена ранијих ставова или, према ријечима кооснивача Википедије Џимија Велса, је појам који се користи на Википедији, а односи се на садржај који има приступ карактеристичан за књижевна дјела, односно ”новеле, приповјетке, романе, или потпада под историјске интерпретације, односно реинтерпретације”.

[уреди] Примарни и секундарни извори

  • Примарни изворe представљају, информације или подаци, као и археолошке творевине; филм, видео или фотографије (али погледајте испод); историјски документи као што су новине, цензус, транскрипт јавне презентације или интервјуа; резултати истраживања мишљења јавног мнења, или различитих истраживачких упитника аранжираних у табеле; писани, звучни или видео записи, поријеклом из научних истраживања, као и обсервација у лабораторијама и ван лабораторија.
  • Секундарни изворe представљају уопштавања, анализе, синтезе, интерпретације, или вредновања информација, или података из других извора.

Оригинално истраживање којим се ствара примарни извор није дозвољено. Напротив, истраживање које се састоји у сакупљању и организовању информација, из постојећих примарних и/или секундарних извора је, наравно, добродошло. Сви чланци у Википедији треба да се базирају на информацијама сакупљеним из објављених примарних и секундарних извора. То не потпада под орригинално истраживање него се односи на истраживање које се базира на изворима и то је фундаменталан приступ стварања било које енциклопедије.

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.

Чланци на Википедији садрже материјал на бази провјерљивости и не истине. Тако да се у њима представља оно што су други провјерљиви извори објавили, без обзира да ли ми сматрамали да то што је у њима записано није довољно тачно. У намјери да се избјегну оригинална истраживања, и у намјери да се помогне побољшању квалитета Википедије, битно је да сваки извор материјала, као и било која уопштавања, анализе, синтезе, интерпретације, или вредновања, односно вредновања информација и података, потичу из већ објављених извора, односно извора, или публикација трећих лица са репутацијом (што значи одбацивање самообјављених материјала, односно материјала које свако може да објави на Интернету, или одштампа у локалним штампаријама). Веома је важно постављање одговарајућих референци, односно избјегавање вађења информација из контекста у циљу стварања намјерно погрешне интерпретације садржаја. Исправно постављање референце, помажу читаоцима да се увјере, да оно што пише у чланку на Википедији има подршку на другим мјестима са репутацијом и кредибилитетом.

У неким случајима, ће бити контроверзије или дебате о томе шта чини одређени извор легитимним или са репутацијом. Када не постоји слагање о томе чланак би требао 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.

[уреди] Шта је неприхватљиво?

Убачена измјена у чланку се сматра оригиналним истраживањем, ако претпоставља идеје и аргументе. Односно ако се њоме чини било шта од слиједечег:

  • Убацује се теорија или метод одређеног рјешења.
  • Убацују се оригиналне идеје
  • Дефинишу се нови термини
  • Дају се или постављају нове дефиниције већ постојећих појмова.
  • Убацује се аргумент, без навођења провјереног извора, чији је циљ побијање или подржавање неких нових идеја, теорија, аргумената, или позиција.
  • Убацује се анализа или синтеза већ успостављених чињеница, идеја, мишљења, или аргумената, на начин којим се ствара одређена ситуација којом се фаворизује мишљење уредника, без атрибуције такве анализе или синтезе, провјереном извору.
  • It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

Чињеница да се у Википедији не прихватају одређене ствари, не значи да је материјал лош , или несправан, односно неистинит - то само значи да Википедија није одговарајуће мјесто за његово објављивање. 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.

[уреди] Зашто оригинално истраживање није прихватљиво

The original motivation for the no original research 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.

However, original research is more than just no personal crank theories. It also excludes editors' personal views, political opinions, their personal analysis or interpretation of published material, as well as any unpublished synthesis of published material, where such a synthesis 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.

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.
  2. 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.
  3. Relying on citable sources helps clarify what points of view are represented in an article, and thus helps us comply with our NPOV (neutral point of view) policy.
  4. 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.

[уреди] Синтеза објављеног материјала која служи за заузимање одређеног става

Уредници гријеше када мисле да ако је садржај А објављен у провјереном извору и Б је такође објављен у провјереном извору, онда А и Б могу да се користе у једном чланку да би се исфорсирао став Ц. Напротив, то је класични примјер нове синтезе објављеног материјала који се користи да би се исфорсирао нови став и стога се сматра оригиналним истраживањем. ”А и Б, ради заузимања става Ц” је прихватљиво само онда, ако је провјерени извор објавио тај аргумент и који има везе са темом чланка.

An example from a Wikipedia article (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 scholarly practice because he gave citations for the references he had learned about in the other book.

So far, so good. Now comes the new 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 require citation of the source actually consulted. Neither manual calls violations of 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 committed 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.

[уреди] Уредници стручњаци за одређену област

"No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as their knowledge is verifiable. 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.

[уреди] Објашњавање теорија

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.

[уреди] Угледне публикације

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 hates children. 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.

[уреди] Оригиналне слике

Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from the no-original-research policy (sometimes called the NOR policy). Wikipedia editors have always been encouraged to take photos or draw pictures and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free licence, to illustrate articles. There are several reasons this is welcomed:

  • Pictures are generally used for illustration and do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR, or no original research, policy.
  • 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, 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. All uploaded pictures are subject to Wikipedia's other policies and guidelines, notably Википедија:Verifiability, and Википедија:Neutral point of view.

[уреди] Правила у вези и упуства за уређивање

[уреди] Википедија:Проверљивост

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.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

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

[уреди] Википедија:Неутрална тачка гледишта

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.

[уреди] How to determine whether a view is established

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 Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia's founder:

  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a 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, 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.

See Википедија:Neutral point of view for more detailed information.

[уреди] Извор правила: мишљење оснивача Википедије

Wikipedia's founder, Jimbo Wales, has described the origin of the original research policy as follows:

The phrase "original research" originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the Web. The basic concept is as follows: It can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is true or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid; we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide. The exact same principle will hold true for history." [1]

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. [2]

[уреди] На страницама за разговор и страницама пројекта

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.

A few pages have been created devoted to research into issues related to Wikipedia; for instance Википедија:Statistics Department and Википедија:WikiProject Wikidemia. These pages may contain original research; that is, research for which there is no reference other than projects in the Wikipedia namespace. Original research that does not have Wikipedia as its object should, however, be avoided on these pages too.

[уреди] Друге опције

[уреди] Види још

  • {{Original research}} - message used to warn of original research
  • Википедија:Neutral point of view
  • Search engine test
  • Википедија:Verifiability
  • Wikipedia:Cite sources
  • Википедија:Template messages/Disputes

[уреди] Референце

[уреди] Додатне информације